I suggest to go for "itsRule(s)" instead. This name more clearly indicates what the rules are about.

Best regards,
Christian

Maybe just "rules" would do?
-ys

This bug depends on the proposal for ITS schema redesign (bug 3016). A crucial part of the design proposal is to have a clear separation "global" versus "local", which we have in the whole draft.
Another point: One kind of rule, that is "selecting some nodes and adding information to them", is still related to what we do with ITS locally. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0366.html for further information. In other words: I would propose to keep the distinction "global" versus "local".

This issue (Bug #3017) is one of the topics for discussion this week (and
decision at the Wed Mar-29 teleconference).

Summary:

1) The question: how should the current 'documentRules' should be named?

Since we don't have schemaRules the name documentRules may not be appropriate anymore. [Note that the renaming of documentRule is resolved since we decided to go for translateRule, termRule, etc.]

Several names are proposed: globalRules, itsRules, rules.


2) The question: what should be the suffix for the 'value passing/pointing' attribute?

The name of the attributes that use to be called xyzMap in the Mandelieu proposal need to reflect their 'value passing/pointing' aspect rather than a 'mapping' that is something different. This applies for: locInfoMap, locInfoRefMap, rubyBaseMap, rubyTextMap, termRefMap, etc.

Several suffixes are proposed: xyzPointer, xyzPassThrough, xyzValue (and I may forget some).


My personnal (current) option:

1) rules
2) xyzPointer

-yves

(In reply to comment #4)
> This issue (Bug #3017) is one of the topics for discussion this week (and
> decision at the Wed Mar-29 teleconference).
> 
> Summary:
> 
> 1) The question: how should the current 'documentRules' should be named?
> 
> Since we don't have schemaRules the name documentRules may not be appropriate
> anymore. [Note that the renaming of documentRule is resolved since we decided
> to go for translateRule, termRule, etc.]
> 
> Several names are proposed: globalRules, itsRules, rules.
> 
> 
> 2) The question: what should be the suffix for the 'value passing/pointing'
> attribute?
> 
> The name of the attributes that use to be called xyzMap in the Mandelieu
> proposal need to reflect their 'value passing/pointing' aspect rather than a
> 'mapping' that is something different. This applies for: locInfoMap,
> locInfoRefMap, rubyBaseMap, rubyTextMap, termRefMap, etc.
> 
> Several suffixes are proposed: xyzPointer, xyzPassThrough, xyzValue (and I may
> forget some).
> 
> 
> My personnal (current) option:
> 
> 1) rules
> 2) xyzPointer
> 
> -yves
> 

+1 for xyzPointer
-1 for "rules". This has to do with the schema redesign proposed at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0301.html . For each data category, so far we had the discinction "global" versus "local", which is also in the schema. So I would propose "globalRules".

I would go for 'its:globalRules' since this would make it very clear (from my understanding) that the corresponding markup 

1. has to do with ITS
2. has to do with global ITS information
3. is rule-like in nature

Example:


<its:globalRules>
  <its:tranlateRule .../>
</its:globalRules>

My runner up would be 'its:global' since the contents of 'itsGlobal' would make it clear that 'its:global' holds rule-like info.

<its:global>
  <its:tranlateRule .../>
</its:global>

Best regards,
Christian

(In reply to comment #6)
> I would go for 'its:globalRules' since this would make it very clear (from my
> understanding) that the corresponding markup 
> 
> 1. has to do with ITS
> 2. has to do with global ITS information
> 3. is rule-like in nature
> 
> Example:
> 
> 
> <its:globalRules>
>   <its:tranlateRule .../>
> </its:globalRules>
> 
> My runner up would be 'its:global' since the contents of 'itsGlobal' would make
> it clear that 'its:global' holds rule-like info.
> 
> <its:global>
>   <its:tranlateRule .../>
> </its:global>
> 
> Best regards,
> Christian
> 
+1 for its:globalRules
++1 for its:global

Since we don't have local rules, saying <globalRules> seems
redundant to me. The discussion in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0301.html
about distinguishing local from global is not relevant,
as there is no local corollary of <globalRules>. Using
the word "global" raises falses expectations.

I'd go for <ITSRules>, on the grounds that
these elements may appear in an instance document's
header section, and its nice if they are human
parseable.

Sebastian

(In reply to comment #8)
> Since we don't have local rules, saying <globalRules> seems
> redundant to me. The discussion in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-i18n-its/2006JanMar/0301.html
> about distinguishing local from global is not relevant,
> as there is no local corollary of <globalRules>. Using
> the word "global" raises falses expectations.
> 
> I'd go for <ITSRules>, on the grounds that
> these elements may appear in an instance document's
> header section, and its nice if they are human
> parseable.
> 
> Sebastian
> 

If I count right that means
rules: Christian(?), Sebastian, Yves
global something: Felix
which means I'm out.
Rules would be o.k. with me, so <its:rules>.

> Then maybe using XLink's simple link would be better: not re-inventing
> > something and keeping it processable by simple tools. I'm not very familiar
> > with XLink but it seems we should be able to do:
> > 
> > <its:link xlink:href="someRules.xml"/>

Without any indication of the semantics of the link, the word <link>
is still a bit odd. This would work fine, though its a pain declaring
yet another namespace, but I'd still rather see something like <rulesLink>

Resolutions: <documentRules> is now <rules>

Closed, no further action necessary.