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

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: "Bullard Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 16:47:13 -0500
• Cc: "'John Cowan'" <jcowan@r...>, wperry@f..., xml-dev@l...
• Organization: BAH
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFF4@h...>

<Quote>
Otherwise, saying "XML provides interoperability" leads to these 
grinding permathreads and we are kidding ourselves 
about the value of a new subset.
</Quote>

Absolutely agree. XML does not provide interoperability - the use and
correct implementation of common vocabularies (and the correct use of
XML of course) provide interoperability.

Joe Chiusano
Booz | Allen | Hamilton

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> 
> This is why the definition of interoperability has to
> be looked at critically as I showed earlier in the
> response to Doug Ransom and in my mail on the TAG list
> to Chris.
> 
> o exchange information - "ability of two or more systems or components
>   to exchange information and to use the information that has been exchanged [IEEE 90]".
> 
> Perry is there.
> 
> o request services - "ability of systems to provide services to and accept services from other
>   systems and to use the services so exchanged to enable them to operate effectively
>   together".
> 
> Web services are there.
> 
> o interchangeable parts -  "be functionally equivalent or interchangeable components of
>   the system or process in which they are used".
> 
> I'm not sure if anyone is there if XML 1.0 doesn't define a processor and
> the infoset varies too much among the application languages.  Maybe parsers.
> 
> Still...
> 
> One should decide where along that almost continuum
> one is "interoperating".  Otherwise, saying
> "XML provides interoperability" leads to these
> grinding permathreads and we are kidding ourselves
> about the value of a new subset.
> 
> len
> 
> From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]
> 
> W. E. Perry scripsit:
> 
> > As last week's discussion made clear, such processors are non-conformant to
> > the XML Rec. That is the reason de jure not to create documents intended for
> > such processors and then call either those documents or those processors
> > 'XML'.
> 
> Let's not overdo it here.  Such processors are not XML, but the documents
> they accept certainly are.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> 
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>

begin:vcard 
n:Chiusano;Joseph
tel;work:(703) 902-6923
x-mozilla-html:FALSE
url:www.bah.com
org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team
adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012;
version:2.1
email;internet:chiusano_joseph@b...
title:Senior Consultant
fn:Joseph M. Chiusano
end:vcard

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: The waterfall model lives?
• Previous by thread: RE: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread