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

RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer?

• To: "'Roger L. Costello'" <costello@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 16:20:06 -0500

Yes, and that is why in HumanML, I asked for it to be 
quickly restricted to human-to-human communications. 
It keeps it from becoming CYC or just RDF.  You are 
working on MachineML:  the categories of polite 
machine intercourse.

I need to know what you mean by interoperability.  As I've 
said repeatedly, data is portable, systems interoperate. 
My perspectives are thus:

Bits on the wire are portable given equally functional 
parsers on both ends.  The simplest approach to this 
so far that scales structurally, enables names, and 
then avoids collisions is XML + Namespaces.  Then XML 
turns a blind eye to the semantics of the names and 
the values of data inside the structures leaving that 
to the object model of the type handler.  If systems 
(implementations of these models) must interoperate, 
they need portable data (bits on the wire).  But we 
still don't have a definition of 'interoperation', 
just 'operation'.  What does it mean to 'inter'operate?
I suspect we are back to ontological commitment: given 
a message (bits on the wire) of some type (in accordance 
with an authoritative specification), the observable 
receiver will emit a recognizable behavior to which 
the observing system may emit a recognizable response.

Mutuality requires perspective.  Schemas are 
a kind of perspective.  By introducing them 
to the process, one has introduced the categories 
and then verifies the commitments by observation. 
What you are assembling is the kinds of information
that are a metric of depth to the commitment.

The trick of the mating game at every age is to be 
"willing and eager" given some partner.  All of the 
noise is in the selection and retention of partners.
To maximize the game, both sides must surrender to 
pleasing the other without expectation but with a 
knowledge of range of expectation.  That is the only way 
it becomes "frictionless".  This usually does not 
begin in humans until they reverse roles at least 
once.  One alternates being willing in order 
to make the other eager.

len


From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@m...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
 
> the attempt
> to create a set of categories of those things/types
> that can affect a human communication.  

I like this description, although my interest is in machine-to-machine
(M2M) communication.  Thus, I recast it as: 

   The attempt to create a set of categories of those 
   things/types that can affect data interoperability.

Comments?

• Prev by Date: RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer?
• Next by Date: RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer?
• Previous by thread: RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer?
• Next by thread: RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread