18 objectives for a "2-bit" "name" field!
Comments...
1. We have a compromise, not an optimization (for machine parsing).
Suggest the concept of "facilitate" be stressed over "optimize".
4. Edit - "Only include the name in its native units" (delete "each").
5. Dump this goal!! (additional units) This has been a rat trap!
The compromise syntax we are developing is too stressed by this
goal. Save this for a full fledged schema.
6. I think the notion of "self describing" has been misinterpreted.
Some feel a description should contain more (margins etc.). Some
think "self describing" means easy to read and distinguish. It
might be better to simply state... "The "Standard Media Name" will
contain both a "Name" part and a "Dimension" part."
7,8,9. I think these can all be replaced by simply extending the above
(6) to read "The "Standard Media Name" will contain 3 parts,
1. Naming Authority
2. Name
3. Dimension
10. Given (6,7,8,9 - above) this is just stating the obvious. This
registry
is a simple list. If we find stuff we've missed, we help ourselves add
it. If we missed a galaxy or universe our there, somewhere... (i.e.
an entire naming authority) or if we want to establish a new name
space, we can readily do so.
On and On... I don't know about the rest. Glazed donuts come to mind.
Or... a real schema development effort!
----------------------------------------------
Harry Lewis
IBM Printing Systems
----------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 10 2001 - 00:14:38 EDT