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

RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: Streaming X ML)

• To: 'Rick Marshall' <rjm@z...>
• Subject: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: Streaming X ML)
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 16:13:13 -0600
• Cc: XML Developers List <xml-dev@l...>

You might want to look at 

http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/paretian/pareoptimal.htm

and pay attention to the heuristics section.  Equilibrium doesn't 
always work to everyone's advantage.

In the Wizard of Oz (the book), the Good Witches create the tornado that 
brings Dorothy to Oz because the powers of North, South, East and 
West were in equilibrium and that was a rotten deal for the Munchkins 
and the Winkies.  Networking Dorothy's innocence to the Wizard's 
secret was a very small nudge to a stable system to cause it to 
restabilize into a pareto optimum for Oz for everyone except the 
Witch of the West, and she was past saving.

That's what disruptive systems do.  It is not that hard to use simple 
services to create complex systems.  It just isn't always fast.

Is an iPod simpler or more complex than the CD player on your computer?

If we simplify XML, it will get complex again.   If we subset it, 
it might or might not.  It's a question of utility within the network.

len


From: Rick Marshall [mailto:rjm@z...]

it's a bit more complex. i've noticed that the users of simple systems 
which require a lot of excess staff and extra paper and add on systems 
designed by the users (read loads of spreadsheets) seem to be happier 
than users of very efficient systems that do everything for them. 
perhaps someone has done a study of this..

the systems that appear simple but are complex underneath and all but 
run the businesses or processes are cost efficient and usually a 
significant financial advantage for the corporation.

the other systems survive because so many companies a) don't know about 
the latter and b) are happy to remain in a different competitive 
optimisation well.

it's a paradox and as much as i dislike the salesstaff over selling the 
systems, i need them to make the propects dissatisfied with the simple 
system.

on this basis i'm nearly ready to argue for xml n.0 to be a simplified 
xml, rather than a more complex one. more on that when i get my ideas 
sorted better and have time to write the somewhat longer discourse.

• Prev by Date: Re: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification)
• Next by Date: RE: XML Compression (Was RE: An unclear point with W3C XML 1.0 Specification)
• Previous by thread: RE: The Airplane Example (was Re: Streaming X ML)
• Next by thread: Cursor on Target
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread