Re: Registrars of terminology

[Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>]

> 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
uche.ogbuji@fourthought.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