[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Registrars of terminology
- From: Uche Ogbuji <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: "Arnold, Curt" <Curt.Arnold@hyprotech.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 12:58:50 -0700 (MST)
> Any hint on how to provide feedback? For example, the BSR schema
attempts to use illegal names such as "2.310" and "2.310.330.656" for
element and type names and a lot of the type attributes on
> element definitions do not have an explicit namespace prefix resulting
in trying to find a "656" type in the schema for schemas, for example.
I must admit I've only used this as a human-readable tool. That is, I use
it as a hint on how to name element types and attributes. I don't
actually, say, link to the GILS BSR RDF schema in my models. That's why I
missed the errors.
I still think it's somewhat valuable for the prose descriptions. Len
pointed out that many of the descriptions themselves are terse, but I've
found that they tend to fill up a bit if you look at several related terms
and piece together the description.
The intent of the BSR, which is after all still *far* from complete, is to
have definitions comprehensive enough for its authoritative purpose.
> Doesn't seem quite ready for primetime.
Sounds that way. Oh well. Soon enough, I hope.
I do know that UN/CEFACT/ebXML, CEN/ISSS, and DISA all have an eye on
BSR, so it's still an important project to watch.
Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant
email@example.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com
4735 East Walnut St, Ste. C, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
Software-engineering, knowledge-management, XML, CORBA, Linux, Python