[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: "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...>
• Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:17:27 +1000
• References: <PL3VIZSQ1YMLHE94JEQLIGJG5Y71C8.3d97150d@MChamp>

From: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...>

> 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 ).  

I can "imagine" a case where several institutions in a finance-related industry are using a common schema for applications, but each institution uses Schematron to vet applications based on their 
business rules.  Ultimately, the (encrypted) Schematron schemas could be
uploaded to the client-side so that a single application can be vetted by agents onsite.

Now, for this kind of use, the more type-aware Schematron can be, the better. 

Cheers
Rick Jelliffe

• References:
  • Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: limits of the generic
• Next by Date: Namespace Algorithms
• Previous by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Next by thread: Re: Datatypes - it's in the contract
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread