I agree.
I think you [Craig] are renaming the existing complexity rather than reaching through to simpler language. Probably too close. Forest / Trees.
tc
“It is the theory that decides what can be observed."
—Albert Einstein
Toby Considine
Phone: (919)962-9073
Information Technology Services
University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NC
Email:
Chair, OASIS OBIX Technical Committee
Chair, OASIS WS-Calendar Technical Committee
Editor, OASIS EMIX, Energy Interoperation TC
From: [mailto:]
On Behalf Of William Cox
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 10:12 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [obix] Contract questions
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
