W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xmlschema-dev@w3.org > November 2004

SV: Element names guidelines

From: Bryan Rasmussen <brs@itst.dk>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:00:04 +0100
Message-ID: <D45A5694803BE943BA46F9A7262BF83D12343F@its42.itst.local>
To: "'MCRAWFORD@lmi.org'" <MCRAWFORD@lmi.org>
Cc: xmlschema-dev@w3.org


>This <Car><CarDescription> approach is an unnecessary repetition of the
>"Car" concept and appears to be what Jeni Tennison warned against
>earlier in this thread. IMO this is usually caused by not properly
>modeling your data before authoring the schema.

>You might want to look at the UBL Naming and Design rules as a good
>source of a comprehensive standards-based approach.

In my experience UBL seems to be overflowing with redundancies and verbosity
of pretty much this type; to be redundant is to be a special form of
verbose, UBL seems to me to be verbose on other levels as well. 

Let us examine SellerParty in the cbc namespace under UBL 1.0

first of all SellerParty seems somewhat verbose, what does SellerParty
convey that Seller misses out on?

Remember the question that originally started out this thread? if it had
been: how do I best convey the information that someone  is the seller of an
item, the examples might have all been

<ItemSeller>


<Item-Seller>
and so forth. 

( "MY God!" he exclaimed, "XML dialects as structured with XML Schema as the
validation technology are a special form of German!") 

Within SellerParty we have various elements, some of these are references to
Buyer information, such as "BuyerAssignedAccountID" which seems reasonable
that we have Buyer in front of that. But then we have the following 
SellerAssignedAccountID, well the Seller is redundant there because we know
that we are under Seller but we have it because we also have a BuyerParty
that has to hold two AssignedAccountIDs, one assigned by a Seller, one by
the Buyer one is under.


certainly this could have been done in numerous other ways, some validatable
via XML Schema, some not, but for some reason we end up with the way we
have, and it seems to me that it is most often the way it ends up when XML
Schema is used. 


I have not attempted to come up with some great theory as to why XML Schema
should lead to this especial form of verbosity, I have just noted that it
seems to be the case.
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 15:02:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:23 UTC