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

RE: Marketplace XML Vocabularies

• From: "Len Bullard" <cbullard@hiwaay.net>
• To: "'Costello, Roger L.'" <costello@mitre.org>, <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 15:29:06 -0600

It's simple enough: anyone writing an XML vocabulary that doesn't write a
processor (say object model?) specification dealt a dodo even where the
coupling at the exchange is weak.  The stronger the coupling, the stronger
the data typing and method definitions where coupling strength is some
measure of intensionality (expectation of behaviors or correct methods
across the interface).

Not a big mystery.  More of a business rule issue of product over
marketplace or feature sets.  Contract behaviors for processors can be
declared by parties at any exchange.  It's an issue as complexity is added
by different *types* of business partners.  The more complex the partnership
networks, social or business, the harder it is to keep consistent rules.
The basic challenge is merging type systems that have some low frequency but
real-time evolutionary rate of change.

XML is there when that all goes to dung, partners go solo and you, the XML
owner want to retrieve value from the investment in those data sets.

A marketplace is not abstract.

len


From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org] 

Assertion: an XML vocabulary that has aspirations of ending up in the
marketplace must be described by a specification that provides both meaning
and effect. Do you agree?

/Roger

• References:
  • RE: Marketplace XML Vocabularies
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@mitre.org>