xml-dev - RE: XML Schemas: Best Practices

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Yep.  That is the mantra of logistics analysis. 

Function is not implementation; it is the contract 
for testable or observable behavior.  It can be 
done as a description, of course, but there should 
be, in the logistical description, a means cited 
to test conformance.  Chase that thought you are 
having a bit further in light of namespaces being 
a signature for an interface.  Then ask yourself if 
you need or want that given that regardless of the 
spec, the use of the URN/URL means to too many, a 
location, not an authoritative owner of a domain.

The problems with the semantic web will be superstitious  
behavior in the face of noisy signal and establishing 
authority for definitions.

Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@home.com]

In manufacturing, we used to talk about "form, fit, and function".  If a
part or assembly met these three, you could use it in place of the
original.  Other differences didn't matter.  It was almost like an
mantra for some people...
"Function" would correspond to the actual responses a component
provides - what it does.  Note that this is NOT implementation.  "Form"
referred to size, shape, maybe weight, and so on, so it would correspond
to interface. "Fit" had to to with tolerances and interconnections, so
that seems to be part of interface too.

Yes, interface and implementation are very different.  Good to remember.