Re: Hobbsian processes
8/22/2002 8:42:14 PM, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote: > > >Furthermore, if having a "standardized input" shifts some burden from >the information consumer to the producer, can you agree that totally >unstandardized input shifts some burden in the opposite way. After all, >you've described how you need to maintain logs, write regular >expressions, and kick exceptions to human processors. It is commonly >accepted that using a standard vocabulary is a way of meeting in the >middle. You probably won't have to write totally custom code for it >because you may have other customers that use the SDV. I probably won't >have to write totally custom code for it because I may have other >suppliers that use the SDV. I agree with Paul's description of the sensible technical solution. But what if your website or service has dozens or hundreds of producers of inputs, and they all deal with dozens of consumers of inputs. Presumably this will happen increasingly as service oriented architectures (RESTful, SOAPy, P2P-ish, or whatever) become more pervasive. You have no authority to get the various consumers of messages to get them to band together and insist on some common schema, and you have an economic disincentive of some sort to reject inputs that don't conform to your idea of a valid message. What is to be done? Well, joining the plumbers union and learning an honest trade comes to mind <grin> but assuming that you want to live in the environment where no one has the authority to impose an authoritative schema, and there are disincentives to employ "draconian" measures when imperfect inputs are received, what do you do? I suggest that one does the kinds of things that Walter is talking about. The RSS situation seems to be a beautiful illustration of what the dilemmas that arise in the Real World. First, there's little agreement what "valid" RSS is. There do seem to be some conventions on what "broken" RSS might mean, but there's a weblog go-around (whatever you call a "thread" in weblogese) centered on Sam Ruby's blog concerning the costs/benefits of being liberal in accepting broken RSS. The world as a whole would be better off if everyone rejected broken RSS and complained to the producers ... but in the meantime very few people would have any news to read, because (the impression I get anyway) is that lots of popular news sites emit "broken" RSS. Is there any reason to think that this won't be repeated many times over as XML worms its way deeper and deeper into the business infrastructure? Do people REALLY think that competitors will band together to define and enfore standard schemata, when they all have an incentive to use whatever hacks they can to take business from those who reject invalid messages that contain sufficient information?
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