From: Richard Knapp (richfk_at_attglobal.net)
Date: Fri Jul 19 2002 - 00:55:57 CEST
Return-Path: <owner-cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch> Delivered-To: cavexml-archive_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 0E67C14ACB for <cavexml-outgoing_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:37:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 28) id E5AFC149BB; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:37:27 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id DB1CE14ACB for <cavexml-loopcheck_at_ethz.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:37:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0, from userid 96) id B9B9F8A78; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:37:24 +0200 (CEST) Delivered-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id 8275614ACB for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:37:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from prserv.net (out1.prserv.net [32.97.166.31]) by karmail.ethz.ch (Postfix on SuSE eMail Server 2.0) with ESMTP id EF9B97DAF for <cavexml_at_cartography.ch>; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:37:21 +0200 (CEST) Received: from Muphin (slip-12-65-36-133.mis.prserv.net[12.65.36.133]) by prserv.net (out1) with SMTP id <2002071823210120103o60lpe>; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 23:21:02 +0000 From: "Richard Knapp" <richfk_at_attglobal.net> To: "cavexml_at_cartography.ch" <cavexml_at_cartography.ch> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 18:55:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: PMMail 2.20.2380 for OS/2 Warp 4.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: Entities and fields Message-Id: <20020718233721.EF9B97DAF@karmail.ethz.ch> X-Loop: cavexml Sender: owner-cavexml_at_karmail.ethz.ch Precedence: bulk Reply-To: cavexml_at_cartography.ch X-Virus-Scanned: by AMaViS perl-11
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 09:26:52 -0600, P A Hill & E V Goodall wrote:
> He has choosen Field and then drawn an analogy to 'columns'. I'd say this is
> a reasonable way to explain by example. Using a DB term he would have called it
> a column straight out :-)
True.
> Do you have a better word than "field" we could use to stay away from
> attribute or element, both specifically defined in XML?
My point is not to point out a correct or incorrect way of defining
things. However, if the document is to be totally implementation
neutral, then neither XML (done) or database (not done) terms should
be used.
As far as what I would choose, that depends on the design language
being used. Since this is much like OOA/D (non-language but somewhat
implementation specific), terms like "data member" or "property" are
pretty neutral. That would also infer the larger items are objects or
classes. Classes might be too much OOA/D but objects might work.
FWIW...
> Now he could explicitly say that a field may map to an element or
> an attribute of another element and not just leave it to be surmised by the reader.
What ever is said,it should be extremely specific so there is very
little chance of confusion. Something that is implict to one person
may mean something totally different - and probably wrong - to
someone else. Since understanding and cooperation is the point of
doing all this, everything needs to be explicit. But YMMV
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jul 31 2002 - 23:00:00 CEST