Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
And that works fine unless the answer to questions to one and two are No. Then we have to renegotiate or stop. I can have portable data or portable code. I can't always get interoperable code for portable data. Like it or not, we are still caught in the Clash of the Titans. The browserWarz Part III becomes the web service warz, part 1. Or, I just default back to schemas and instances and demand that the system be blind to the implementation. len -----Original Message----- From: Nicolas Lehuen [mailto:nicolas.lehuen@u...] ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> > 3. Ask the Web: use RDF or some other expert system > what is needed. Isn't this sort of a dictionary? It > works as long as you own or accept the ontology of > others. This is Trust and Verify. Advantages? > > 4. Send the code. Java folks like that. This > is the ultimate, Trust Me, I Own The Process > approach. Augmented with a way to export the > information on request, it is easy for end users > despite any problems of performance, proprietary > languages, etc. > > Others? Well, in fact it is a mix between 3 and 4, but some RDF for a document or schema could point to some code resource (e.g. a Java Class) that would implement a known interface depending on the relation type. Or it could even point you to an interface. Here are some examples of how it could work, obviously Java oriented, because I'm one of those Java folks :).
|
