[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: ISO 11179

• To: 'Bryan Rasmussen' <bry@i...>
• Subject: RE: ISO 11179
• From: Barwell Jonathan <Jonathan.Barwell@a...>
• Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 11:24:53 +0100
• Cc: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Return-receipt-to: Barwell Jonathan <Jonathan.Barwell@a...>

I also believe ISO-11179 to be unwieldy but it is does provide a starting framework for naming your data elements.  The concept of using different structures, i.e. Object Class, Property Term, Representation Term, Qualification Term, in your naming structure will provide a long but specific naming.  It is then a matter of using common sense, an understanding of your business domain, and some additional rules to define names that are more concise.

I generally tend to avoid using the Representation Term as any supporting schema should identify the data structure and also the Object Class is only relevant when using global elements.  In a database environment you would not generally name a column CUSTOMER_NAME in the CUSTOMER table as it is already in context, you would simply use NAME.  Therefore, if you are using local elements in Venetian Blind style then the Object Class is redundant as the element is in context.  However, if you use different design styles, e.g. Salami Slice or Garden of Eden, then the Object Class may be necessary to avoid naming clashes.

Reference to Section 4.2.1: General Naming Rules from the UBL Naming Rules gives some useful pointers
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/ubl/ndrsc/current/_Toc27551384

Jon Barwell
Technology Specialist, AAH Pharmaceuticals

-----Original Message-----
From: Bryan Rasmussen [mailto:bry@i...]
Sent: 10 June 2005 09:31
To: xml-dev@l...
Subject: ISO 11179

Hej

ISO 11179 is often used as a naming standard for very large xml standardization efforts. Personally I feel that it leads to some of the ugliest and most unusable names in xml. The argument I am hearing for its usage is well, these other projects do it (which reminds me of my moms arguments for me not jumping off cliffs) and it is good to have a naming standard so as to not risk repeating types etc. when you already have them.

Please, any commentaries on ISO 11179 usage either for or against.

--
Bryan Rasmussen

-----------------------------------------------------------------
The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>

The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/

To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>

************************************************************************

DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and is intended

for the recipient only.

If you have received it in error, please notify us immediately by reply

e-mail and then delete it from your system. Please do not copy it or

use it for any other purposes, or disclose the content of the e-mail

to any other person or store or copy the information in any medium.

The views contained in this e-mail are those of the author and not

necessarily those of Admenta UK Group.

************************************************************************

• Prev by Date: RE: ISO 11179
• Next by Date: RE: ISO 11179
• Previous by thread: ISO 11179
• Next by thread: RE: ISO 11179
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread