[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: #33: The term "schema" is ambiguous.
I agree that we should clarify (and qualify) our use of the term "schema". We use the term "schema" to mean at least three different things: 1) the XSD for SPMLv2 core protocol and standard capabilities 2) the <spml:schema> element of an <spml:target>. (This contains the <xsd:schema> and any number of <supportedSchemaEntity> elements.) 3) the <xsd:schema> of a target. (This is open content of the <spml:schema> element of an <spml:target>. I'd like to know what to call each of these. (I don't think the term "provisioning schema" reduces confusion, since this term could still apply to any of them.) I like the term "target schema" better, but that could still apply to either #2 or #3. So, how about this? #1 we handle just by using the full name (e.g., "Core Schema" or "Suspend Capability Schema"). If it's better, we can say "Core XSD" and "Suspend Capability XSD". #2 we call the "target schema wrapper"). Rename spml:SchemaType to spml:SchemaWrapperType and rename spml:schema to spml:schemaWrapper. #3 we call the "target schema" (or "target PSO schema") If we rename <spml:schema> to <spml:schemaWrapper>, then "target schema" should be reasonably clear. Bohren, Jeffrey wrote: > 2.1.3.1 – I would like to change the title from “Schema” to > “Provisioning Schema”. Also everywhere we talk about the schema for a > target, we should use the term “Target Provisioning Schema” or > “Provisioning Schema” as appropriate. This will help alleviate the > problem that the term schema is used for so many purposes. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]