Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML CMM and ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach
 From: "pop3" <lbradshaw@d...> > I strongly and emphatically disagree with your assertion that " There is no > such thing as a "rigorous scientific proof"..." Why am I not surprised? ;-} > I cite physics as a prime example. Various proofs, including proofs of the > theory of relativity and the speed of light, for instance. Sorry, the theory of relativity is not proven. It is only a theory that agrees with some empirical evidence and is consistent with a framework of other theories. Believe me, a real physicist would like nothing better than to shoot down relativity. The search for counter-examples and/or conditions under which relativity might not hold sway is ongoing. I'm not sure what about the speed of light you think is proven. You confuse physics with mathematics. > In this context (XML, RDBMS) I will state the specifics as: > - a test bench or test bed of consisting of computer(s) running Windows or > Unix. > - an XML parser (approved by or compliant with W3C specs). > - a dbms such as Oracle > - an application specification and requirements > - a definition of terms including best practice, best system, cost factors, > essential items, desirable items, and specific yardsticks or measurement > areas, prediction in advance of measurement results for all areas, > measurement areas to include technical (performance, reliability, > usability, complexity) and non technical areas such as costing, ease of > use, ease of interface to other non technical systems by non technical > people (ad hoc integration). > - applications that satisfy that specification and requirements written > 1) solely in XML (HM) > 2) solely in dbms (RM) > 3) as a combination of XML and dbms technology (HM mapped to RM and back). > > Tests or proofs would consist of: > - initial cost factors for 1, 2, and 3 above > - support and maintenance cost factors for 1, 2, and 3 above. > - performance test results per the specifications and requirements Blah. You think you can string a bunch of vague, ungrounded buzzwords together and use them to prove something? What is a measure of "best practice". What the heck can "best system" even mean? Now you're confusing sociology with physics. > Applications I suggest would be good to test are: > a) company phone book for company with six offices in four locations across > boundaries such as states or zip codes or phone area codes. > b) contact system similar to various commercial systems like ACT > c) multimedia system, such as movies and soundtracks and musical scores to > plays and operas, and text of those movies, screenplays, operas, and > reviews of these in a searchable format (where was this line used... ) > d) financial data such as a corporate book of accounts > e) document data such as newspaper text > f) mixed media historical data such as all 20/20, news casts, newspapers, > movie news reels, Nightline and BBC world news shows. These are good use cases, all right. So far, though, no science. > When people say no system is like their system, they just have not seen > enough systems. I respectfully submit that endeavours towards these proofs > will be highly valuable to the advancement of the science in XML as well as > in DBMS work yet to come. Theory is fine. Practice is harder. Generating > standard test cases, for systems such as the above, will be well worth the > effort as it brings us together to solve problems in a coherent and > systematic way, with open source offered to any and all who wish to > participate or contribute. > > Without doing a standard set of proofs, I just do not see how the > discussion can advance effectively. Of course people get frustrated, of > course people get emotional, of course people are talking at cross purposes > most of the time !!! > > But it does not have to be that way. Let's get a set of proofs, such as the > above, underway world-wide, right now. > > If we are all on the same page, we can speak much more effectively and > address the real issues much more directly than is usually the case today. > > Just an idea. We are not all going to get on the same page if it involves searching for "proofs" that don't exist. I have nothing against empiricism, but it is hard to put a yardstick on vapor. Bob Foster 
|
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
|
|||||||||
