I fully agree with everything that you wrote below.
Alessandro
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dwarkanath, Sukumar [mailto:]
> Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 00:09
> To: Timothy Grapes; ; Alessandro
> Triglia; Lee Tincher
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: [emergency] HAVE comments - explicitly
> identifying the normative parts in the data dictionary
>
> Great discussion and some good points - I agree with Lee that
> we should follow consistent naming and design rules, and the
> NIEM NDR is a definitely a good resource. I think we have
> spoken about this a few times before and we all agree in
> principle that we need to focus on the next steps in pursuing it.
>
>
>
> From my perspective, the schema should be the authoritative
> artifact for all the XML elements and structure. As I see it,
> the data dictionary provides additional clarification, as
> needed, and provides a high level overview to non-technical
> users. The normative parts in the data dictionary are mainly
> the business rules and definitions - the reason we include
> the usage and other information is to ensure that this
> information is conveyed to non-technical users as well - I
> think this is important as it eases the burden on
> practitioners and does not force them to review technical documents.
>
>
>
> The proposed suggestion is for the near term, and is a
> compromise to respond to Alessandro's overall comments of
> ensuring well defined compliance statements are well defined.
> It is clear that none of us are in favor of delaying HAVE at
> this point - so, we should decide on moving forward at the earliest.
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Sukumar
>
