Re: Caution using XML Schema backward- or forward-compatibilit
Fraser Goffin wrote: > Roger, > > I think in an earlier thread David Orchard contributed some comments. > I can't remember whether he included EXTENSIBILITY as a [special] type > of versioning. In particular the ideas around who 'owns' the > vocabulary and who can make changes. One of the things that I find > very difficult is where there is only central ownership and no ability > for distributed extensibility. Central ownership has very many plus > points, but at least one significant negative, namely, the speed of > change. In particualr information items that are [at least initially] > part of a private relationship between two (or more) trading partners, > but where the vast majority of the exchange is fulfilled by a > 'standard' schema. IMO extensibility (for the vocabulary user) is > essential and hels to reduce versioning 'churn' and more importantly > ensures that the core vocabulary does not constrain the business > operating model of those that want to use it. > That reason for extensibility is only necessary if the central authority can't or won't respond quicker. Some of it has to do with the way vocabularies are designed and distributed to the members of those organizations. I wrote about this back in December of 2006. Basically the central authority needs to adapt faster to their members chaning needs: Agile Schema Development. http://www.starstandard.org/index.php?n=STAR.XML2006 We've been doing this for 3 years now, and it works extremely well. It definitely helps with backward and forward compatibility testing as well, at least from a structure stand point.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
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