[jsdl-wg] Naming elements

[Donal K. Fellows]

Michel Drescher wrote:
>>>> - Any other elements and types should be locally defined. Or do we
>>>>  want to allow i.e. "jsdl:NetworkBandwidth" to be root element?
>>
>> I don't see any reason not to make any of our resource terms global
>> elements.  I think we must purge from our minds the idea that there is
>> a "JSDL document".
> 
> Again, this is true if JSDL-WG really wants to define an ontology. If 
> indeed this is the main driver for the group, then I deeply apologize 
> for my misconception.
> 
>> There is a JSDL Specification which defines a
>> family of documents such as jsdl:JobDefinition.  If you want to talk
>> about a JSDL document, you need to define a "JSDL" element!  Every XML
>> element is a document, once you embrace the universe as an
>> infoset. :-)
> 
> Again, the specification (to my understanding) does NOT define an 
> ontology. It clearly states the parent child relationships between the 
> elements, for example a "[jsdl:Application element] MUST be a 
> sub-element of the JobDescription element." 
> (draft-ggf-jsdl-spec-0.9.5-01.doc, ch. 5.4.1.1).

It is this message/discussion that I was referring to during the telecon.

Examining the current spec indicates that we do not define an ontology,
and this is because we specify what elements must contain other
elements. By dropping the reference from element definitions to their
parents (as used in a job-defining document) we can define an ontology
*as well*. Sounds like a win all round to me.

Donal.