[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitableand Y

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitableand You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:47:49 -0400
• In-reply-to: <4F4182C71C1FDD4BA0937A7EB7B8B4C10576C890@r...>

6/13/2002 3:31:19 PM, "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...> wrote:

>I was simply quoting it because it
>summed up the hopelessly idealistic attitude that such problems could
>ever be eliminated (and that by having a "repository").

Speaking of hopelessly idealistic <grin> ... what do y'all think of these 
articles by Gartner that offer another take on the problem: 

http://news.com.com/2009-1001-935421.html?tag=cd_mh
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?id=345089

"Gartner recommends the following linguistic model for XML standardization:

? Devise a method for defining, classifying and validating XML vocabulary 
items. Items would include elements (with their "part of speech") and 
management attributes (such as ownership, where used and last revision).

? Create a grammar to construct transactions. A legal XML transaction would 
be one constructed according to a publicly defined grammar from publicly 
accessible vocabulary items (such as public repositories).

? Don't allow applications to release XML transactions that aren't valid 
according to this linguistic model. Applications receiving such XML 
transactions would "parse" transactions for such grammatical correctness 
before accepting the transactions as legitimate."

I'm confused by the terminology here -- the article seems to use terms such 
as "parse", "grammar", "validate", "elements" in a way that is different 
than what they generally mean in the XML world, and I can't quite figure 
out what they are really suggesting.  Drilling down in the second link, it 
looks like they're really talking about the potential for UBL, but I don't 
know much about that.

Can anyone help deconstruct what these really imply for a use case such as 
the one faced by the US Government?  Or perhaps this is just a teaser to 
get us to pay for Gartner's services to explain it all ....

• References:
  • RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
    • From: "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@m...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Next by Date: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Previous by thread: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Next by thread: RE: Resistance is not Futile because Change is Inevitable and You Might As Well Get Paid for Implementing It
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread