Re: Data Dictionary, Draft 2

[Ian Lowe]

Yep, an important word of caution, Paul..

I think we have seen this danger as things go on... the concern was that
ever developing schemas would introduce more and more tags, eventually
having a dozen different ways of saying the same thing...

I *hope* we have caught it in time, and certainly, the developers I have
spoken to so far about this are seeing the port allocation as a natural
hiatus to re-examine things/enforce standards..

I think we have to tread the balance between a command for everything, and
the value of a specific tag..

In particular, the suggestion Keith just made.. INPUT and SOURCE seem to me
pretty similar, I'm bowing to greater knowledge on that one...

the general principle will be that *every* zone like operation, whether
that's IR, heating, lighting, *anything* will use ZONE. having the ZONE and
ZONENAME gives a great degree of flexibility,

If you have previous experience in this sort of endeavour Paul, that's too
great an opportunity to pass up. Will you act as a filter on this stuff for
us? Interested in taking part?

Ian.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Robinson" <<a
href="/group/ukha_xpl/post?postID=5BLPS7Fe9me3VsA8d7Q0Wk8ZngdztiN_fkj-aiIMCdavjYl0kmmjWkY7aNOJyR362l6aTQ9akPkpSGw">ukcueman@y...</a>>
To: <<a
href="/group/ukha_xpl/post?postID=kRAn04k8-ero6NmfMRiuwhlmY86DvN-uQYhI-6jb0kJ34Z0DqGVi0ehcbHJgynu0yVwlTlz4jeKc0SPTJHkNr4Q">ukha_xpl@xxxxxxx</a>>
Sent: Monday, May 26, 2003 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ukha_xpl] Data Dictionary, Draft 2


> First the disclaimer: I've been watching xap and xpl stuff for a
little
> while. I intend to get involved at some point, probably a few months
from
> now, using and probably programming in one or both of these. So this
comes
> from somebody who hasn't yet got involved.
>
> Seeing this dictionary, can I inject a word of caution. This may be
> preaching to the converted, but the last time I was involved in a
project
> that tried to create a global dictionary like this, it ended up a
complete
> nightmare.
>
> Common strings for common things is clearly a great idea. xpl is all
about
> interoperability and simplicity, so common strings are an obvious
thing to
> do. Where I hit trouble before was in those situations where there was
> something similar already available, but not quite the same. So we'd
> introduce a new string. Or some modules needed multiple strings
similar to
a
> pre-existing one, so we'd introduce new strings. Then you have to
decide
> whetehr to use the original one at all or just the new strings etc.
>
> We made the mistake of trying to include *every* word in the
dictionary.
> Before long, we got to a point where different modules would apply a
> different meaning to the same string, or a module didn't use a string
you
> would have it would simply because it had multiple similar strings
that it
> used instead.
>
> In the xpl context, this would equate to the dictionary containing
words
> from every schema.
>
> So my caution is not to try and include absolutely everything in the
> dictionary - or it is in danger of becoming a monster.
>
> Just my 2p.
>
> Paul