Re: [MODEL] Resolutions to nouns describing LFB class definitions?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jamal Hadi Salim" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "tom.petch" <[email protected]>; "Joel M. Halpern"
<[email protected]>; "Ellen M" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: [MODEL] Resolutions to nouns describing LFB class definitions?
>
> Can we discuss this and resolve it? It is a little more difficult for me
> to read 4.5.3 (and i am gonna assume the rest of 4.5.x).
>
> Joel, what are your thoughts on the subject?
>

To quote myself from last October

"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."

I think that is still the best summation of my thinking.

Tom Petch

> cheers,
> jamal
>
> On Fri, 2007-05-01 at 11:06 -0500, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> > Thanks Tom. I know Joel has it under control but i've just put this
> > discussion in the tracker (issue #103) so it is not forgotten when
> > people get busyed out.
> >
> > cheers,
> > jamal
> >
> > On Fri, 2007-05-01 at 08:57 +0100, tom.petch wrote:
> > > Jamal
> > >
> > > There was general agreement that using the same terms as had technical
meaning
> > > in XML was likely to cause confusion but there was no consensus on what to
> > > replace the ones in -model with.
> > >
>
>