RE: COMPLEXITY BIG ISSUE

["Rik Drummond" <drummond@onramp.net>]

i expect, when the french contingent shows up in brussels we will end up
discussing this in more detail... rik

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org
[mailto:owner-ebxml-transport@lists.oasis-open.org]On Behalf Of Duane
Nickull
Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2000 12:28 PM
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