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

The text below is from a message I sent to the list 6 months ago.
No one seems to have commented.
That leads to a conclusion and a question.
The conclusion is that I should stick with the proposed replacement 
use of "component."
The question is whether I should fix this at all?  On the one hand, 
the terminology conflict is really unfortunate.
On the other hand, to change it I will need to change the XML schema, 
and that will mean a required change to the protocol draft.

(Tom Petch noticed the original conflict in usage.  Jamal and I 
discussed it on the list, and privately since.  Protocol team, I 
would like to hear from you.)


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