Naming conventions: Requirements, Reqs, Definitions and Defs

[MarAlder]

Problem

Due to the length of the word Requirements, we have chosen the abbreviation Reqs when revising the performanceRequirements for CPACS 3.3. This may result in long XPath strings. However, it was noted that this is inconsistent with other node names where we write out Definitions and do not abbreviate to Defs.

Proposals

1. We also abbreviate Definitions (resp. Definition) as Defs (resp. Def).
2. We keep the current state as Requirements is a bit longer than Definitions and then sometimes use abbreviations and sometimes not.
3. We consistently write out everything according to the motto: as expressive as possible. In the XML file the tags are listed underneath anyway and for the XPath strings linebreaks could be used.

I prefer solution 3. What do you all think?

[ErwinMoerland]

I prefer solution 3. The 'delta' in XPath length achieved due to using abbreviations does not seem too large (saving a couple of characters compared to an already relatively long xpath). I do prefer the 'as expressive as possible' motto here.

[CarstenChristmann]

Although I prefer shorter names I vote for the proposal which causes a minimum of necessary changes in the released schema V3.2. This will reduce the impact on already existing tools.

[MarAlder]

closed by #716