• From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
• To: "'xml-dev@l...'" <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 07:18:47 -0400

 
Hi Peter,


> One issue I see is that rules need to be expressible 
> (presented) in a way that is comprehensible to non-programmers.   
> Rules themselves need to be adaptable to express simple or 
> complex logic, which may make them difficult to interpret by 
> non-experts.

Yes.

Here's what von Halle says:

   Business people may not be overly interested
   in data models, process models, or object models.
   But they are definitely interested in business
   policies and rules. Indeed, it is through policies
   and rules that business leaders steer the business.


And she also writes:

   analysts capture the ... rules of the system
   and developers express them as declarative rules
   rather than procedural code.



> I've long thought that XSLT was an excellent language 
> for expressing rules.

What category would you place XSLT:

 - A language for expressing process/workflow rules

 - A language for expressing data validation rules

 - A language for expressing user interface rules

 - A language for expressing data relationship rules

Or perhaps another category?


Thanks!

/Roger

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: A categorization of XML technologies based on the kind of rules they express
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>

• References:
  • A categorization of XML technologies based on the kind of rulesthey express
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: A categorization of XML technologies based on the kind of rules they express
    • From: "Rushforth, Peter" <Peter.Rushforth@N...>