[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

Re: The subsetting has begun

• To: XML DEV <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: The subsetting has begun
• From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
• Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 17:59:08 -0500
• Organization: Fiduciary Automation
• References: <15725CF6AFE2F34DB8A5B4770B7334EEEACFF4@h...> <3E5FD8E1.A44C11FE@b...> <3E5FE111.ABAD195@f...> <3E5FE441.2C968BB@b...>

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

> Of course - but this assumes that there has been no stakeholder management, and that the data has been
> collected in a vacuum by a select few.  It also assumes that there is no documentation provided with
> the data as to its meaning, origin, etc.  If those things are done I think a different picture emerges.

Unfortunately, precisely this is the inevitable risk of 'interchangeable' parts, where those parts are
data structures. The data silos were built in the first place because the expertise in a process which
went from data collection through analysis to reporting was presumed to be monolithic. Then along come
those who want the data repurposed and the silos broken down. The only way that standard data
vocabularies (or 'interchangeable' data structures of any sort) offer for doing that is to bisect the
silo horizontally with a common vocabulary, precisely so that those who collect the data are factored
away from those who analyze and report it. At that point, the practical effect of no one's expertise can
be greater than the common denominator vocabulary which is the only nexus between collection and use of
the data, and by design the only means of expressing the 'contract' between the collectors and the users
of the data. Or are you suggesting by 'stakeholder management' a constellation of out-of-vocabulary
agreements and constraints, intended to insure the compliance of the data collected with the specific
criteria of each expert group of users? And if so is this not a new silo, only most inefficiently
realized? Or perhaps you are suggesting that the original raw data be reviewed against the expression
given to it in the standard vocabulary and those audit results (stated, presumably, in a standard
vocabulary of their own) be forced to accompany the first instantiation of the data everywhere it goes,
so that users with more finicky standards can use that audit data to recalibrate the first statement of
the data before they process it? And so it goes.

Breaking down the silos is simply a problem which cannot be remedied with standard vocabularies or other
interchangeable parts. In fact, put to that use standard vocabularies are the most efficient tools of
deception and fraud.

Respectfully,

Walter Perry

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• References:
  • RE: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "W. E. Perry" <wperry@f...>
  • Re: The subsetting has begun
    • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by Date: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Previous by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Next by thread: Re: The subsetting has begun
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread