Re: textual matters Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

I would love to hear what others have to say.

---- Original Message -----
From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: textual matters Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

> Quite a number of very useful editorial matters.

Yup quite a number
>
> You note one terminology problem that I am not sure how to correctly resolve.
> We have LFB Attributes, and LFB Capabilities (which are really a
> special kind of attribute.)
> That, by itself, as you observe, is a bad use of terminology.
> You also note that this conflicts with the XML usage of "attribute."
> Further, what they both are actually is LFB elements, not LFB attributes.
> Can I just change the basic definition to "element"?  They are not
> exactly XML elements.  But they are conceptually similar to
> that?  (we assign them "elementID"s for example.
> Or do we need to find yet another word for them?
>
I think both attribute and element are best avoided since they are both
technical terms in XML, this document and library documents major in XML and the
concepts we are talking about could be expressed as an <elememnt> or as an <
...attribute=...> or as something else, perhaps because XML lacks the fine
grained precision and so text is used instead.

I was unclear how far <attribute> was embedded in documentation and code and so
hesitated about saying change it, but I would prefer not to use it for this
reason.

I think of both concepts as functional abilities, constraints or such like, the
one part of the LFB Class definition, the other an implementation restriction.
s3 (which might almost have been written by a different author) uses capability
model
(for the LFB Class defined such) and capacity information, and these are the
best
terms I see in -model, but we could do better.  I think two words (as in LFB
Class) are better than one to make it stand out as a technical term with special
meaning in the context of ForCES (namespaces again:-).

So, as I said at the top, I would love to hear the views of others.

Tom Petch

> Thanks,
> Joel