UBL Naming and Design Rules SC

 View Only

[ubl-ndrsc] Tag structure discussion kickoff

  • 1.  [ubl-ndrsc] Tag structure discussion kickoff

    Posted 12-12-2001 16:08
     From the latest minutes:
    
    			*		*		*
        Outstanding issues:
    
        - Do we use highly structured names (option 1) or slightly structured
          names (option 2)?
    
        - Do we use fully qualified structured names (option 1a) or abbreviated
          structured names (option 1b)?  How much abbreviation do we want
          to allow?
    
        - Do we use ebXML/11179-style names (option 1E) or UDEF-style names
          (option 1U)?
    
        - Do we add attributes to UBL elements that link them to the UDEF
          structured UIDs?
    
        ACTION: Everybody to discuss this on the list!
    			*		*		*
    
    Okay folks, have at it!  I will be on vacation from tomorrow through next 
    Tuesday, so won't be able to participate during that time.  Here are my 
    thoughts on the matter, as unformed as they may be:
    
    - I think regularity is important, and can't see much "intuition-affecting" 
    difference between Mark's xCBL example and his modified option #1 version 
    (which uses 1b, by the way).  So I'm in favor of option 1.
    
    - I prefer option 1b, so that we give reusability some amount of 
    importance.  I think we should try to come up with an algorithm (not a 
    heuristic), if we can, to ensure that our regularity stays regular.
    
    - I prefer option 1E, so that we can more easily align with semantics that 
    we know are important to us and so that the Library Content SC can continue 
    to work in the effective way that they've been using so far (working off of 
    CC semantics).  I see nothing inherently wrong in the UDEF semantic trees 
    (though I don't know them very well yet), but do have some questions about 
    the object words that are aligned with context drivers -- how would that 
    work against the context methodology that needs to be developed?  It sounds 
    a bit weird to be baking context into base UBL.
    
    - I don't, in principle, have a problem with adding UDEF UIDs to our leaf 
    elements.  I see this as very much an adjunct, however, and it could 
    possibly be done at a later stage.  Perhaps because I'm not entirely 
    familiar with the usage/processing situations envisaged for these "hub" 
    semantic sets, I have some doubts about how helpful it really is to link up 
    to a standard semantic when the internal structure of the so-marked element 
    can possibly be arbitrarily different from any other such element on the 
    planet.  (Or maybe this is solved only by linking from leaf nodes?)
    
    	Eve
    --
    Eve Maler                                    +1 781 442 3190
    Sun Microsystems XML Technology Center   eve.maler @ sun.com