Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Architectural Forms and XAF
 [Steve Newcomb:] > >Now here's the real point. Without AFs, there are only two choices, > >in all cases where all the players in an industry must communicate > >freely with each other: > > > >(1) Everybody has to use the same DTD or Schema (which ain't gonna > > happen for reasons too obvious to mention here), or > > > >(2) Everybody uses different DTDs, and, for N DTDs, there must be > > roughly N-squared transformation specifications to convert between > > them. [Sean McGrath:] > There are three choices - not two:- > > (3) Agree an interchange DTD. For N DTDs, there are N transformations > to the interchange DTD. This is *exactly* what AFs do where > "interchange DTD" == "architectural DTD". > > However, by choosing to use AFs for this, you (IMHO severly) > limit the degree of mapping between the source DTD and the > interchange DTD. > > I am a big fan of interchange DTDs. My experience,FWIW, is that > the differences between DTDs that need to be mapped to an > interchange DTD are almost always such that the transformation > to the interchange DTD cannot be expressed with AFs. It's true that the use of AFs places certain limits on what you can do in instances that purport to inherit them. That's the whole point! The idea is to make sure that the information you're sending someone is processable in terms of some higher, widely-agreed-upon model, an "interchange DTD" (aka, in ISO terms, for better or worse, a "meta DTD"). Your third choice methodology sacrifices the ability to determine automatically whether an instance conforms to the constraints expressed by the interchange DTDs into instances of which it presumably can be transformed. Therefore, your third choice is not a realistic option if all the members of an industrial community must communicate reliably and cheaply with each other, while accommodating diversity and specialization. Your proposed third-choice methodology requires a distinct, separately maintained transformation specification for every DTD; that's both expensive and unreliable. Of course, if reliability is not important, there's no need for any of this stuff; we don't need DTDs at all. I realize that Web culture does not place a high value on reliability, and that it places a very high value on apparent simplicity, even when apparent simplicity creates massive complexity and mountains of unnecessary work for information managers. B2B communications absolutely require reliability and predictable results. Accountability is vital. Avoiding accountability is popular, but the avoidance of accountability is not in the best interests of the world economy as a whole. -Steve -- Steven R. Newcomb, President, TechnoTeacher, Inc. srn@t... http://www.techno.com ftp.techno.com voice: +1 972 517 7954 fax +1 972 517 4571 Suite 211 7101 Chase Oaks Boulevard Plano, Texas 75025 USA *************************************************************************** This is xml-dev, the mailing list for XML developers. To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo@x...&BODY=unsubscribe%20xml-dev List archives are available at http://xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ *************************************************************************** 
|
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
|
|||||||||
