RE: PCLS classes deprecated in PCELS

I very much agree with Larry about naming.

regards,
John

John C. Strassner
Chief Strategy Officer
Intelliden Inc.
90 South Cascade Avenue
Colorado Springs, CO  80906  USA
phone:  +1.791.785.0648
  fax:     +1.719.785.0644
email:    [email protected]


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry S. Bartz [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 7:41 AM
> To: Pana, Mircea
> Cc: 'Joel M. Halpern'; '[email protected]'; [email protected];
> David McTavish; John Strassner
> Subject: Re: [Policy] PCLS classes deprecated in PCELS
> 
> Pana, Mircea wrote, On 09/12/03 16:10:
> > So, if I understand correctly, everything would be "OK" if PCELS
> did:
> >
> > 1. Define only subclasses of PCLS classes and, where not
> possible,
> > redefine PCLS concepts as new classes (use different names and
> oid.s).
> > This is already the case in the currently published ID with the
> > exception of pcimGroup* that would need to be redefined with a
> different
> > name.
> >
> > 2. Use "for compliance with PCIMe implementations SHALL use <list
> schema
> > items> instead of <list of schema items> for the realization of
> > <concepts>" instead of deprecating PCLS classes. This would be
> added to
> > a new revision of the ID.
> >
> > I'm fine with both. (I hope I did not miss anything)
> 
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> 
> >
> > Wrt. naming PCELS classes and attributes pcime* instead of pcim*,
> as
> > long as there are no naming conflicts, I would prefer to avoid it
> if
> > possible. Could you live with that? However if we have to do it
> for one
> > item we should do it for all.
> 
> 
> The distinction between PCIM/PCLS (the "core") and PCIMe/PCELS (the
> "extension") is significant; significant enough to distinguish the
> work of you and your co-authors by assigning a set of distinctive
> names
> to all new and different PCELS attributetypes and objectclasses. If
> PCELS does not do this, implementers will naturally expect that
> information components with similar prefixes belong to the same
> information model. The logical differences between PCIM/PCLS and
> PCIMe/PCELS preclude this kind of mix and match. PCELS should
> facilitate implementation by providing its own set of names.
> 
> One more thing. I agree with John Strassner, who writes:
>  > ..this document changes PCLS in several fundamental ways. I do
> NOT
>  > think that the word "update" should be used anywhere in this
> document. </js>
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> --
> --
> #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> ::::|
> # Larry Bartz
> #
> #  voice (317) 226-7060
> #  FAX   (317) 226-6378
> #::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> ::::|