VS: langauges and tags

[Matti.Vasara@fingrid.fi]

Dear All
As a non english speaking native but a rather long experience of
transforming things to one culture to another,  I strongly support, that the
tags should be made by mnemonic english and translations to other languages
(cultures) should be made separately by people who know the business and
their culture. If ebXML should have the terms in many languages, you can add
half year to the time of the work for every other language and more if the
cultures are not so near another as those in Portugal and Russia.
best wishes
Matti Vasara

> -----Alkuperäinen viesti-----
> Lähettäjä:	David Burdett [SMTP:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
> Lähetetty:	9. maaliskuuta 2000 4:14
> Vastaanottaja:	'Duane Nickull'; Troy R Lowe
> Kopio:	ebXML-Architecture List; ebXML-TransportÉlists. oasis-open.
> org
> Aihe:	RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE
> 
> Duane
> 
> I agree. Let's assume English, right now, for all names while we develop
> them, but actively encourage and support literal translations to other
> languages such as French and Russian, if groups want to do it.
> 
> You could then have a very simple utility that did the conversion from
> language to another.
> 
> By the way I think that an Invoice in France and Portugal apparantly has
> to
> written in the native language for it to be legally valid. So a
> translation
> utility might be very useful ... ;-) Can anyone in France or Portugal
> confirm this.
> 
> David
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Duane Nickull [mailto:duane@xmlglobal.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 10:28 AM
> To: Troy R Lowe
> Cc: ebXML-Architecture List; ebXML-Transport@lists. oasis-open. org
> Subject: RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE
> 
> 
> <Troy>
> What group of humans? English speaking only? This is to enable what? XML
> should
>  not be seen by a human if it works.
> </Troy>
> 
> The UN, who is sponsoring the initiative, has three official languages.
> They are English, Russian and French.
> 
> It has been discussed that we may possibly adopt  a system where
> 
> ELEMENT=(EnglishTerm || FrenchTerm || RussianTerm )
> 
> The message structure should be reasonably intuitive.  This means that a
> human being should be able to somewhat decifer a message.  This is very
> important for manually constructed messages, error checking, archiving and
> searching.  It also reduces the system architectural complexity.
> 
> In short - I am totally against using numerical values for Elements.  We
> do
> not want to create another cryptic taxonomy.
> 
> EXAMPLE:
> 
> If you encounter:
> 
> <ebXML>
>   <Header>
>      <From>Foo Inc.</From>
>      <To>Bar Corp.</To>
>   </Header>
>   <Message Type="Index">
>    Blah
>   </Message>
> </ebXML>
> 
> OR:
> 
> <ebXML>
>   <En-tête>
>      <Du>Foo Inc.</Du>
>      <A>Bar Corp></A>
>   </En-tête>
>   <Communique Tapent="facture">
>    Blah
>   </Communique>
> </ebXML>
> 
> This is certainly more intuitive than
> 
> <123>
>   <3422-3>
>      <993-44321-2>Foo Inc.<993-44321-2>
>      <128-2>Bar Corp.</128-2>
> ...
> 
> You get the idea.
> 
> Also - in the event that one of the elements was mal formed,  you would
> need
> a translation tool to verify the numerical equivalent of your elements.
> Not
> a good Idea.
> 
> Duane Nickull
> 
> 
> 
>