OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ebxml-core message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: RE: Long Tags Codes etc. again

As I understand it, the dictionary names we have developed are not the correct format for
XML tags.  However, we could certainly use them as the base for the tags.  Just have to
take out the periods, and remove redundancies. 
The critical part is the definition of the Core Component.  As long as we are exact about
that, it should be easy for users to make sure that we are all using the same element for
the same thing, and perhaps easy to translate into other languages.
The latest update to the catalog should be a great start for the domain teams.  The team
that met in London two weeks ago did an excellent job clearly defining many of the CCs and
naming them.  The work of definition is difficult, but necessary.  Not doing that part well at
X12, and maybe EWG, is one of the reasons we have so many data elements that are
misused or redundant.
As for Martin's comments, I thought he meant something like:
    Seller Party  
        Name  XYZ Company
        Duns   123456789
        Contact  John Doe
Instead of
       SellerPartyName  XYX Company
       SellerPartyIdentifier 123456789
       SellerPartyContactName John Doe
-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 8:17 AM
To: 'ebXML Core' (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Long Tags Codes etc. again

Martin thinks w should use the context of the previous tags to add meaning.  He argues we should use
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 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
"Opportunity is what you make of it"

-----Original Message-----
From: martin.me.roberts@bt.com [mailto:martin.me.roberts@bt.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 7:41 AM
To: mblantz@netfish.com; philip.goatly@bolero.net; ebxml-core@lists.ebxml.org
Subject: RE: Long Tags Codes etc. again

    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:
    You get;
    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

-----Original Message-----
From: Blantz, Mary Kay [mailto:mblantz@netfish.com]
Sent: 17 April 2001 12:39
To: 'Philip Goatly'; ebXML Core
Subject: RE: Long Tags Codes etc. again

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
-----Original Message-----
From: Philip Goatly [mailto:philip.goatly@bolero.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2001 4:47 AM
To: ebXML Core
Subject: Long Tags Codes etc. again

   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

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Search: Match: Sort by:
Words: | Help

Powered by eList eXpress LLC