Re: Enlightenment via avoiding the T-word

[Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@rpbourret.com>]

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