I think this is making it more complex than needed.
Where the text now says "Contract" you almost always mean "Contract
List". And that's how I'd suggest saying it.
Only when you talk of the structure of the attribute of say Op:in
would you say "contract list" or "contracts". Capitalized is the
definition, lower case is the set.
I don't think it's a "Contract Sequence". It's a list, as the WD41
text says, but the TYPE was "Contract".
The schema is close IMO.
Toby?
Thanks!
bill
--
William Cox
Email:
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
On 5/12/15 4:49 PM, Gemmill, Craig
wrote:
I’m trying to put together WD42, based on
my (unfortunately incomplete) notes from last meeting’s
discussion.
One of the discussion points was about the
names “Contract”, “Contract Object”, and “Contract List”. I
thought I was okay with the name change of
·
Contract -> Contract
Element
·
Contract List ->
Contract
·
Contract Object being
fully defined.
This seems to help minimize the ambiguity
over whether a Contract List is an obix:list (it isn’t).
However, this vocabulary becomes quite cumbersome, because
then, everywhere in the specification where it talks about
“Contracts”, we now need to say “Contract Elements”. It makes
the wording sound rather awkward to me.
So, I would propose we not do that. It
really seemed to me to just be a name change anyway, as the
concepts are essentially the same. The compromise I would
suggest is to come up with a different name for “Contract
List”, using a synonym for the word ‘list’ to make it clear
this is not an obix:list. I thought it would be a little
easier to find an appropriate replacement than it this
(‘Contract Gazette’ doesn’t quite work, I think), but maybe
something like ‘Contract Group’, or ‘Contract Sequence’ would
work.
I can post a WD42, probably tomorrow, but
it would likely be incomplete, as I am not sure it’s worth
changing Contract to Contract Element everywhere. Just read
the beginning of Section 7 with this change…
Also, regarding the definition of ‘Contract
Object’, I believe Contract Object is the same thing as
Contract Definition. When I went to write up the definition,
I saw the best definition staring me in the face, one line
above. So, I propose changing instances of Contract Object to
just be Contract Definition.
I would like to meet Thursday. If I get
feedback on this, I’ll make the change. Otherwise, I may just
try to make changes for the remaining JIRA issues. I believe
that I had questions on several other issues to discuss last
time, but we spent the entire time talking about the Contract
issue so they missed out.
Thanks
Craig
