Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Jonathan Borden wrote: > > That's IMHO more of an issue of schema design: Why introduce the "fname" > term when "first-name" is perfectly acceptable. Perhaps if we did consult > terminologies we could better re-use existing terms rather than continuously > reinvent the wheel. Yes, this what I meant. The decision to use another term shouldn't be seen as a schema design issue but as a XML vocabulary design and I am afraid that (over)using schema datatypes might hide the issue. Some best practices and designs seem to point in that direction and even if they might be best practices for a schema design, they are IMHO, bad practices for XML design. > This is of course the reason that we provide 'well-known' natures.html and > purposes.html in RDDL, not to prevent anyone from using other terms, but to > enable good citizens to create easily understood documents. That's why I have asked you if you could add the ones I had found important :=) ... > But as in documents designed purely for human consumption, people have a > need to continuously invent new terms for otherwise common things. It is > both a way for members of a group to speak precisely about common knowledge > and as a barrier to entry for outsiders (for example medical terminology :-) OTH, to take another example, it's not because there are online translators available that I should send this email on xml-dev in French... Eric > -Jonathan -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eric van der Vlist Dyomedea http://dyomedea.com http://xmlfr.org http://4xt.org http://ducotede.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
