[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ubl] Question regarding final NDR
Hi Mark, Looking through the CCTS, terms such as Business Information Entity are almost always spelled out (and then followed with the acronym in parens in instances such as definitions) and only used as acronyms in diagrams. So I'd follow the same(or similar) convention. Separately, I'm unclear why you are using xsd notation for what are mainly natural language modeling terms (bbie, abie, acc, etc). It doesn't follow what is actually in an xsd - there is no actual 'ccts:AggregateBusinessInformationEntities' in the schema is there? Unless there is, and this is an example of a schema implementation I'd just use the regular words. -Anne CRAWFORD, Mark wrote: >Folks, > >Right now, the NDR has multiple occurrences of various CCTS terms represented in the following fashion: > > ccts:BasicCoreComponents > ccts:AggregateCoreComponents > ccts:BasicBusinessInformationEntities > ccts:AggregateBusinessInformationEntities > ccts:Datatypes > ccts:CoreComponentTypes > etc. etc. > >Acronyms such as ccts:BCC, ccts:ACC, ccts:ABIE currently are not used. This was done to ensure clarity each time these terms occur. My question is this - is the general consensus that I should preserve clarity through the absence of the use of acronyms, or should I shorten the document by the liberal use of acronyms? > >Mark > > >To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ubl/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]