RE: Marketplace XML Vocabularies
It's simple enough: anyone writing an XML vocabulary that doesn't write a processor (say object model?) specification dealt a dodo even where the coupling at the exchange is weak. The stronger the coupling, the stronger the data typing and method definitions where coupling strength is some measure of intensionality (expectation of behaviors or correct methods across the interface). Not a big mystery. More of a business rule issue of product over marketplace or feature sets. Contract behaviors for processors can be declared by parties at any exchange. It's an issue as complexity is added by different *types* of business partners. The more complex the partnership networks, social or business, the harder it is to keep consistent rules. The basic challenge is merging type systems that have some low frequency but real-time evolutionary rate of change. XML is there when that all goes to dung, partners go solo and you, the XML owner want to retrieve value from the investment in those data sets. A marketplace is not abstract. len From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Assertion: an XML vocabulary that has aspirations of ending up in the marketplace must be described by a specification that provides both meaning and effect. Do you agree? /Roger
[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