Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Nicolas LEHUEN wrote: > But I think the task is much more difficult for words like "name", > "location", "balance", etc. (as I'm French I can give you more example in > French than in English, but I'm sure there are as many in the two > languages). Does it means that we should not use such generic terms ? > > I think not. Names are too precious things (when I'm designing or > programming, I find that one of the most difficult task is giving objects > the Right Name) to put some apart. I think that we should benefit from the > fact that XML enables us to build documents with rich contexts. Thus, let's > use "name", "location", "balance", etc. without defining those names > globally, but just as local element names, since a context is required to > refine their semantic until they are precise enough. Which is why I sit uncomfortably on the fence on local element types. On the one hand, I've been able to define useful and clear vocabularies without them, even if I had to think quite a bit. (As you say, naming is hard.) On the other hand, the vocabularies I've defined are relatively small (~30 element types), so this simply might not be possible for something like ebXML. -- Ronald Bourret XML, Databases, and Schemas http://www.rpbourret.com Speaker, Geek Cruises' XML Excursion '02
|
