RE: ebXML Core Components Submission Version 1.03

[Todd Boyle <tboyle@rosehill.net>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lisa Shreve [mailto:lshreve@mediaone.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:12 PM
> Attached is the updated Core Components submission
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200105/zip00000.zip


I object to the core components named, account.*  I mentioned
this problem in March:
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200103/msg00016.html

James Whittle advised me, 
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-core/200103/msg00143.html

  Todd, sorry for the delay in responding to your question. If you require 
  some vocabulary which has already been defined then you will either 
  agree with the definition and therefore be happy to use the term. Or 
  your context will mean that you have another definition, a synonym which 
  you can register as meaningful within your specific business context.
  
  Kind regards

The banking industry got in there and hardwired a whole bunch
of elements and aggregates which are only valid in the context
of banking.  In banking, an "account" is used as in, a depositors 
account.  However that is only a specific subclass of the use
of the word account, and the Core Component should be called
"bankaccount" not "account".

The naming conventions say that the Dictionary Entry Name
shall be unique.  So, this is for keeps.  All of the other
communities and populations of users in accountancy and 
business outside the banking industry are being disenfranchised
by this Dictionary Entry Name.  When our developers of business
applications search the registry for the thing commonly known 
as an "account", they'll stub their toe on this bank thing, and
go back for a second search in which EVERY other use of the
word "account" is screwed up, like, "sales account", "GL account",
etc.   

So, is this the way it's going to be?  First come, first served? 
What am I missing?  This seems crazy, to me.

Heal me.

Todd