|
Martin
thinks w should use the context of the previous tags to add meaning. He
argues we should use
<SellerParty>
<Name>
instead of <SellerPartyName>
I
would be curious to know how Martin thinks the lay reader will be able to
discern the relationship between <SellerParty> and <Name> unless he
refers to the document schema.
I
think we have gotten it right with the core components naming conventions,
and wonder why we don't just adopt both the naming conventions - and the CC
names developed in compliance with those naming conventions, as our tag
methodology.
Mark
Mark
Crawford
Research Fellow - XML
Lead
E-business Strategies
______
Logistics Management Institute
2000 Corporate Ridge, McLean, VA 22102-7805
(703) 917-7177 Fax (703) 917-7518
Wireless (703) 655-4810
mcrawford@lmi.org
http://www.lmi.org
"Opportunity is what you make of it"
Hi,
One way to get round this is to use the context of the
previous tags to add meaning and hense you don't end up
with:
<SellerPartyName>
You get;
<SellerParty>
<Name>
The amount of characters is the nearly the same but
the tags are short.
Getting XML messages on one screen is almost impossible
as you end up saying xml messages must be only 24-60 lines long as
traditionall XML is shown with one element per line.
Martin M.E. Roberts
xml designer,
BTexaCT
01473 643775
martin.me.roberts@bt.com
Hi,
Speaking just as me, and not wearing any hats at
all...
If
we do this right, then many small enterprises will be exchanging info
electronically for
the first time. Just as new users did with
traditional EDI, I suspect the majority will start
with just displaying the data on their
computers. In this case, it would be good if all
the information was on one
screen.
So, I vote for short but meaningful tags.
Mary Kay
Folks
It has been said
1. Human
readability by domain experts as well as
software specialist,
is a requirement for XML
documents.
Yes true, but if we were to adopt a 'code' as a
tag then it would still be
human readable i.e it is ASCII
but the meaning would be obscured to the
casual/uneducated
reader. It is not beyond the wit of comptuing to look up
the
'code' and make it friendly to the casual reader. Also, given
the
human reader could have some language other than English
as his/her mother
tongue, then the look up could be keyed on
Language Code + tag code. Is this
even better than having a
long English tag?
Even with 'long' tag names, which allow
readability in English, there
still remains a problem, in
that the tag does not convey the complete
meaning - otherwise we
would not need any semantics at all.
Again we must ask a
similar question to the one which I posed before.
How much of
the semantics should be in the tag and how much in the
actual
semantic description of the element.
There is a temptation to
write an 'essay' in the tag.
Anybody got thoughts on this one
?
Cheers,
Phil
|