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

Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>
• Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 10:58:21 -0400
• In-reply-to: <00e401c2678f$a283dc10$4bc8a8c0@A...>

9/29/2002 4:10:12 AM, "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> wrote:

>
>Why isn't this Schematron?  It does not start with a grammar abstraction or the noxious
>supposition of data being a tree getting in  the way of clear expression. There is 
>a divide between clear expression (in natural language) of an assertion and the
>implementation (in XPaths) of that expression.

Fine by me!  I think that illustrates my point of how relatively "low-tech" approaches that re-use 
tried-and-true bits of XML++ (XPath 1.0 in this case) can add a lot more "bang for the buck" than 
hundreds-of-man-year committee jobs.

>
>>  (Ahem, the option of "we don't want your money until you enter the data to
>> our exacting standards" appeals to nerds a LOT more than it appeals to Pointy Haired
>> Bosses!).
>
>On the other hand, it is increasingly important for suppliers of software to be able
>to demonstrate to clients/purchasers/investors that they have proper quality programs
>in place. ISO 9000 and so on

Hmm.  That's a very interesting thought, and I would not at all disagree that lots of automated 
testing is a Good Thing. But this doesn't persuade me that either a) a type-based "contract" will 
meet many real business needs [which was probably not your intention] or b) that one can cut humans 
out of the loop and simply use a type-based validation failure to "reject" a business document in any 
business process sense.  It seems to me that having humans in the loop for quality assurance is just 
as important as having humans in the loop for security assurance (see Bruce Schneier's oft-cited 
opinions described in  http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm ).  

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• References:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Emacs; how to override built-in xml-mode?
• Previous by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread