Re: Gates on XML & other stuff
Tim Bray wrote: > > http://www.informationweek.com/762/gates.htm > > The XML stuff is in sections 3 & 4, but it's all worth reading. -T. Interesting. Gates discovers the science of logistics. Good. "CEOs should have a notebook full of every paper form in the company and an explanation of what the plan is to get rid of that form. He doesn't have to understand technology.." True. At the CEO level. Below that, beware. Good e-comm engineering even with standard components still requires something akin to standard systems methods. It is still a transform to the new system and in that, the reliability measures determine how much information is preserved. The issue going in is how much information is worth preserving, and that starts the fight. Without a method and means to declare closure, it is a business process that lasts too long. By the time one gets it done, the opportunity to use it passes. Synchronizing the process and events of multiple teams becomes a game of crack the whip. Some of the teams get it; others are overcome by it because the binding order favors the teams with resources and will to convert. So, the method must divide the initialization of the base policy set from the negotation of the contracted peformance. In easy terms, screenwriters then actors. He states then: "We don't know how to run a communication company. We don't do that. We're just partners and supporters of the people who are going to make those big investments." Scary. The markup approach is communications: negotation of contract. Declare the goal of the negotiation, then agree on the event schedule and the types. However, if you need a method, beware the "spinkle tags through documents". To be efficient, negotiated types require external agreement and sprinkling tags is not how one achieves that. It is a way some learn how tags w ork, but ultimately, rock solid and legally binding contract negotiations require predesigned types. These are the libraries. The lag time is the time to convert to these. That will take a while and is a stone of sysyphus really. But, Sysyphus is paid to keep rocking; he grows a ponytail and becomes Cousin IT. "There's going to be so many standards, so how do you map from one XML schema to another schema?" BizTalk is what that is but only in that BizTalk is a repository. So is OASIS or any other language services server. Automated negotiation services is the logical evolution of that. The methods of negotiation based on the goal requirements are the means to premap XML schemas. Agree in advance which preformed types aggregate, in what order, and sometimes, frequency and range. "It's not just records but it's the whole process and the events in that process. How do you build products and standards that digitize that?" You're not killing Cousin IT. You provide products so Cousin IT can do what he does better. You make is such that the tools the other professionals use are easily integrated to the servers the ITs are setting up. Pre-aggregate. An early negotiation in the business process is engaging the notations to be used at each step of the process, that is, which events call which notations. Declare the valid namespaces for that document. In DTDs, one declared a list of notations and data attributes for notations. We threw that away in XML. Turn's out, we need them. Notations let you declare the component, any standard values to pass, and gave you a name for referring to the process. A system where the components map to standard notations (in the long run, any XML application languages is just a notation) requires the ability to test conformance. Otherwise, there is no meaningful definition of reliability MTBF (Mean Time Between Failure). "Making your business ready for the Internet--that involves security, exchanging documents externally, policy-based management. Reliability... it's probably the one that drives the sales the most...Reliability is a statistical phenomenon.." Reliability has to declared at the component/notation handler level. Microsoft's biggest drawback is dll management. It is where the system is hardest to field and share. Anyone dealing with forms that cache GUIDs sees this quickly. XML can't fix that except to say, if the notation is a PUBLIC notation, the user can get another object. It must interoperate in the framework. Microsoft's challenge is to ensure that interoperation of conformant components.... regardless of who declares the namespace in the file. The PUBLIC id is the signature of the information. You agree to reliably process information so signed. To succeed in this, Microsoft needs more than XML. XML doesn't work unless component-level reliability is ensured. That is what we contract for. The vendor who can get higher reliability ratings gets the disk space. Again, XMLs only real advantage is that from packet to purse, it all goes easier if the parse is common. len bullard intergraph public safety xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev@i... Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1 To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; unsubscribe xml-dev To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo@i... the following message; subscribe xml-dev-digest List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa@i...)
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!
Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced!
Download The World's Best XML IDE!
Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today!
Subscribe in XML format