[sc34wg3] <topicName> or <name>?

[Lars Marius Garshol]

This was raised by Steve Pepper, who wrote:

> I see no reason to use a longer GI when a shorter one will do. We
> talk about "names, occurrences, and associations", so why would we
> choose <topicName> to go with <occurrence> and <association>?
>
> Perhaps because that is the name of the corresponding information
> item in TMDM? If that's the reason, the same logic should apply to
> <role>, which should then be changed to <associationRole>.
>
> But I don't think this is necessary: The <role> element is a
> direct subelement of <association>, so its meaning is clear enough.
> The same applies to <name>, which is a direct subelement of
> <topic>.
>
> Shorter is better.

I agree with all of this. The only counter-argument I can think of is  
that <name> is ambiguous: it could mean "topic name", "base name", or  
"variant name". On the other hand, I suspect that it's easier if  
people don't have to care about what kind of name it is and can get  
away with just calling it "name" and be done with it.

So unless anyone can come up with good reasons to keep <topicName>  
the next draft will say <name> throughout.

--
Lars Marius Garshol, Ontopian               http://www.ontopia.net
+47 98 21 55 50                             http://www.garshol.priv.no