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

Let me just restate the problem.
There are a number of model components which all behave in similar 
fashions, and frequently need to be referred to in some easily 
understood fashion.  These include the components of structures and 
properties.  They include the attributes and capabilities of the LFB 
class.  They include items in arrays in one of the above.

So I had used "element" for that.  Tom rightly raised the concern 
that this (and attribute) have very clear XML meanings, and we can 
end up sometimes talking about XML elements and sometimes tlaking 
about ForCES elements.  Even if we are careful, this seems likely to 
lead to confusion.
So we need some term for the ForCES element.  (Since we are not going 
to change the XML terminology :-)

But no one has come up with proposed terminology.  If no one comes up 
with anything else, I will try using component, and see how that 
works.  (I doubt that is a good choice.)

Yours,
Joel

At 10:36 AM 1/8/2007, tom.petch wrote:
>----- 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.
> > > >
> >
> >