[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Costello, Roger L. wrote: > I am documenting the different approaches for extending the semantics > of a community's tag-set. I seek your thoughts on this topic. It seems to me that the characteristics of the communities and the data may mean that the choice is not straightforward. The residential lending chain in Australia uses a set of schemas to describe the information required to drive interactions such as broker/lender, lender/valuer, lender/mortgage insurer, etc. Assuming you consider these interactions to be representing communities, there is a very definite progression of various parts the same information through multiple communities. But the lending chain itself is also a community, consisting of the individual communities used to drive processes. A property valuer and a credit scoring agency never interact in the lending chain, but there are intersections of their data. Allowing them and every other community in the chain to represent the same address different ways is not ideal. Your approach 1 or 2 might be better for the small communities, but they would may life very difficult for the chain, as change would ripple up and down. To eliminate that, we use a vocabulary that supports the superset of all structures, then use derivation by restriction to produce the final schemas for the various communities. Of course that means that we get people who suggest that there would be a cleaner way do describe data for their community and they're usually right. But the more flexibility we give them, the further away the realization of Straight Through Processing (STP) of a mortgage becomes. The key is to find the balance that allows them to describe all the necessary information, but to do it in a way consistent with the chain. Marcus Carr
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



