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

Just to clarify, as far as I am concerned the really hard part is the 
naming for the pieces of information that are configured by the 
CE.  In section 3.1 where we discuss FE Capabilities, FE Capacity, 
and FE State we also discuss FE configuration.

The pieces that go into the configuration information are currently 
called <attribute> elements.
The collection of all possible components of an LFB or a structure 
are called "elements" because they are declared using XML Elements 
with the proper value (i.e. <inputPorts> element, <capabilities> element, ...)
The usage of element in those terms is probably right.

We then further complicate things by bringing in a different use of 
element when we refer to information elements exchanged between FE 
and CE in the protocol.n  This in turn leads to sentences like "For 
all elements of information..." which starts to get very confusing as 
to what kind of element we mean.  Some of this can be fixed by clever 
wording.  But it would be helpful to have a term that encompased 
whatever we rename <attribute> elements as, as well as <capability> 
elements, since both may have properties, the path to both may appear 
in get operations, etc.  (And we need to at least determine whether 
it should refer to <event> elements.)  [Another example of this is in 
section 3.2.6 where aI am trying to talk about all the parts of the 
LFB declaration, and therefore end up with "LFBs are made up of 
elements..."  But an actual LFB is not XML, so it is not made up of 
XML elements.  It is only declared in XML, with the declaration using 
XML elements to declare various parts that will make up the actual 
LFB instance.)

Yours,
Joel M. Halpern

At 12:39 PM 11/5/2006, tom.petch wrote:
>  do like the terms in s3.1 of -model; they - capability and
>constraint(capacity) - seem the most natural to me.  I have used the term
>'function' in my e-mails because that is not in the I-Ds and so seemed neutral
>in any discussion, and because it is for me what it is we are 
>talking about, as
>much as capability.  The two could be combined; functional capability and
>functional constraints.
>
>'element' in -protocol could be 'protocol element' which, for me at least, is
>markedly different to (data) element in XML
>
>My 'arrays' are usually 'tables' with rows and columns which works 
>at least when
>they are 2-D; and I allow for atomic elements or structures in the rows.  (I
>sense a C language background to the terminogy of ForCES whereas I am more
>mathematics, ASN.1 and SNMP).
>
>But as you say, hearing more voices would be most welcome.
>
>Tom Petch