[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
It would seem that would be of use in a design for a virtual data warehouse. In essence, it is the contract for the backend systems to join. len -----Original Message----- From: Steven R. Newcomb [mailto:srn@c...] > How useful is that in the real world? That is, if > company A defines one format for invoices and company > B defines another format, what are the chances that > these are (hierarchically) similar enough that I can > define AFs to process them as a single format? My gut > reaction is that this is unlikely. Right, Ron. The AF paradigm is not for everyone, and it's not useful for every purpose. AFs provide a way for Companies A and B to *cooperate* with each other to maintain one or more common base syntaxes that will permit them to interchange information reliably, and point the finger of blame when information interchange fails to occur, but without giving up any sovereignty that they wish to retain over their separate-but-derived syntaxes. If A and B haven't chosen to cooperate (or, more accurately, if they don't both happen to use (any of) the same base architecture(s), for whatever reason), AFs have nothing to offer. The act of cooperating can have many benefits in addition to the benefit of reliable information interchange, while retaining local control of the details. AFs just provide a tangible, workable goal for cooperative efforts that use syntax as the basis of cooperation. That's not an insignificant thing.
|
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
|