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

RE: [Summary] Creating a single XML vocabulary that is appropr

• From: Len Bullard <len.bullard@u...>
• To: Fraser Goffin <goffinf@g...>
• Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 14:25:26 -0500

It probably is unless you count the early work done for technical manuals.
On the other hand, look at how much work went into building UBL and how much
it has cost so far, then do a traffic analysis of current usage.   How is
the rate of adoption comparing to the costs of implementation and
maintenance (evolution costs or system change over fielding)?

The example I posted doesn't factor in uses or users/consumers.  Sometimes
we don't converge those down to one drillable dashboard.   The cost of
another feed to yet another high res-display in a situation room is much
cheaper than force feeding into a single display.    Real convergence comes
in reports where data can be downtranslated into a displayable form.  Now it
is the querying system that takes the hit, not the formats or vocabularies.

IOW the single vocabulary approach might be deferred to a transformation or
query approach.  That is why HTML trumped all other comers.  Humans do the
thinking.

len


From: Fraser Goffin [mailto:goffinf@g...] 
 
What do you think of UBL ? This is the best example I can think of for
cross sector usage of a common vocabulary ?

Fraser.

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the sender. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: [Summary] Creating a single XML vocabulary that is appropriately customized to different sub-groups within a community
    • From: "Fraser Goffin" <goffinf@g...>