[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Namespace: what's the correct usage?
John Cowan wrote: > <flame> > I asked you once before how any processor that receives messages whose > sender intended "counterparty" to be a counterparty, and "sprice" to > be a settlement price, and interpreted them in precisely the opposite > senses, could possibly count as a sensible (i.e. non-Byzantine) member > of the network. > > What you are emitting is blatant This-Or-Nothingism: i.e., because not > every detail of the pragmatic interpretation of a message is constant > from node to node, nothing but the bare surface syntax is. This is > another version of Humpty Dumpty's interpretation of "glory" as > "a nice knock-down argument", and is self-evidently absurd. > </flame> Hi John. You ignored my answer once before: My processor may well be able to do something useful (within, as always, its own frame of reference) by taking your 'counterparty' element or field as the basis for instantiating its own 'settlement price' data. In fact, I have designed a system, now in *production*, which happens to correspond to your example. In that system, a comparison ticket is considered (by the processing node in question, which happens to perform P&S functions) to be definitive for establishing execution counterparty, but not for computing settlement price (which, not so incidentally may be in a different currency, or in different terms--free, DVP, etc.--than those that the terms of the execution, taken alone, might imply). Upon receipt of the comparison, the provisional counterparty can be definitively established and the processing then required to compute the money terms of settlement can be initiated (most likely by another node, or nodes, specifically suited to that task). So, in this example, the element which you, as sender, intended to convey 'counterparty' was, in the salient point of my processing, the very basis for instantiating 'settlement price', while your 'settlement price' element was not something that my processor could (under its own rules of operation) do anything useful with, no matter how much you might insist that I take it as the 'settlement price' for my purposes. Apologies to the list for all of the inside baseball on back-office settlement operations, but it is rare for me to see a strawman in argument which actually corresponds to the empirical data of a case which demonstrates the opposite of what the strawman purports. My simple point is this: my processor is autonomous and may be immune to your 'intent'. What we share is the syntax of a document. If I can--for my own autonomous purposes--do something useful by processing that document in a way which you never expected, I am not only free to do so, but doing so is the perfect expression of my expertise in my own particular (processing) specialty. Respectfully, Walter Perry
|
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
|