terminology wa Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: Re: XML basics Re: LC model draft draft-ietf-forces-model-07.txt


> I am not fully caught up - but just so that Joel and Tom dont see this
> as a ping-pong between them:
>
> On Mon, 2006-30-10 at 07:24 -0500, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> > Okay.  We need to clarify section 4 a bit on the role of the schema.
> >
> > On the question of extension, the only way the schema can be extended
> > is by IETF action.  An IETF working group can write a document that
> > updates this schema, and can declare that new definitions use the new
schema.
> >
> >
> > As for which version of XML Schema, I used the reference I was
> > provided.  If there is a better reference, I am happy to use that.
> >
> > However, the document makes no sense if the schema is not with the
> > document.  Having it somewhere else just won't work.
>
> Although Tom makes good argument that the schema will evolve, I cant see
> it outside the model.
> In regards to the FEO and FEPO: I have in the past suggested that they
> be a separate (infact i wrote a draft isolating them). Is this a viable
> resolution?
>
> > Having it in an
> > appendix is workable.  I am still waiting to hear from others on the
> > list as to whic of the schema, the FE Object definition, and the
> > example definition they would prefer to see in an appendix.
>
> IMO, seems just fine to leave it where it is in s4 and move out FEO.
> Otoh, I dont wanna add any more latency if there is strong feeling that
> the FEO belongs in the model.
>
> The other issue i saw brought up by Tom was on the terminology used
> for ForCES elements and attributes which are syntactically different
> from standard xml attributes and elements: Could we use a "LFB" or
> "ForCES" prefix? eg ForCESAttribute as opposed to just Attributes?
> I wasnt sure if there was some agreement reached in the discussion.
>
I was waiting for others to chip in so good to hear from you.

I think anything using XML then has a problem with the words 'element' and
'attribute' since they have a technical, XML meaning and yes, prefixing or
adding a second word is a good solution to that.

Specifically, the part that confuses me most is the shift in terminolgy between
s4 - (operational) attributes and capabilities (attributes) - versus s3 -
capabilities and capacities, respectively, and s7.  I prefer to avoid the word
attribute in its entirety here but recognise that that means changing the
schema; for me, capabilities and capacities (or constraints), as used in s3, is
better.

This also ripples back into -protocol where in some places, attributes and
capabilities are used, in others attributes would seem to cover both
(operational attributes and capability attributes), while element is widely used
and seems to mean the atomic piece of data that the ForCES protocol operates on.

'element' as used in -model may cause confusion with arrays when arrays consist
of multiple elements which are not necessarily XML elements.

Tom Petch

> cheers,
> jamal
>
> PS:- I havent read fully through the model draft, but i do have some
> comments which i hope to post on.