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

I also think it's not a good choice changing the 'element' name for ForCES. I have to say here the usage condition is quite clear by context of XML or ForCES, and never cause confusion. Our experience also show that this is really not a question. We never had a problem or confusion on this in our work in fact. 

thanks,
Weiming
 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Avri Doria" <[email protected]>
> hi,
> 
> i'd opt for not changing terminology and being careful to use the  
> modifiers XML and ForCES.
> 
> If we call ForCES elements and attributes something else, we still  
> may cause confusion until people understand the new terms refer to  
> ForCES elements and attributes.
> 
> a.
> 
> On 8 jul 2007, at 16.49, Joel M. Halpern wrote:
> 
>> 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
>>