OSCAL Schema style guide

[wendellpiez]

Describe the bug

Reviewing conventions and policies related to naming things in OSCAL (elements, objects, flags, fields, field values, grouping names) would help us provide models with more consistency and legibility.

Currently, to the extent that we have such rules, they are not always followed: for example why do we have both desc and description?

Who is the bug affecting?

Everyone who uses OSCAL will benefit by consistency and clarity in names.

Expected behavior (i.e. solution)

Let's agree and document on a set of rules or principles to follow when naming things in the model. This could be done in the context of a style guide, also addressing other issues e.g. #615.

Then we should review models and improve naming where appropriate.

Rules we have in mind including things like "all lower case", "hyphens to demarcate parts of names (not dots or underscores)" (less controversial rules of thumb) but also, when full names (description) or abbreviated forms (desc) are better.

[wendellpiez]

I plan to survey the models, write up a list of ideas (possibly on this Issue) and circulate.

[aj-stein-nist]

The team reviewed this and believe it is still useful, and given previous issues regarding Metaschema liniting with Schematron, it seems viable and timely. Will consider for review in upcoming sprints.