RE: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.

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

Nope.  It means in many cases people 
have to adopt transforms as a way of 
doing business, accept the overheads 
of diversity, and learn to look behind 
the metal and cloth to the information 
they are exchanging.  It's called analysis, 
we do it every day as we contract for 
both business form and document exchange.

XML Schema will not kill other alternatives. 
Alternatives have to make their own niche. 
Applicable solutions usually find one.  Do 
you want both common tools and diverse solutions? 
How much diversity can you support?  
What about XML Schema makes you think it 
unsuitable for documents? 

I do not mourn the buffalo.  I can go 
to a zoo to see one and don't eat 
stringy meat.  I mourn drive in 
theaters. They were great places to take 
a family.  No one can afford them 
since the price of actors passed 
the million dollar range.

The future of XML Schemas will not 
be determined by the technical 
adequacy or the division of MOM 
vs POP:  it is in their ability to 
take cost out of contract-oriented 
information exchange.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@dyomedea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2001 12:01 PM
To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: Re: Regarding the vote on XML Schema.


"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
 
> Give XML Schema a year.  If the market
> adopts it, there is no cause to complain.
> If the market doesn't, there is no need.
 
I do not completely follow you here.

I think that diversity is always good and something worth fighting for.

This is true in the "real world" for bio-diversity.

I think it's also true in the cyber world for software design and W3C
XML Schema can reduce the diversity of the XML vocabularies if it is
widely accepted by not allowing to describe a wide set of combinations.

If the market adopts W3C XML Schema without enough openings to more
flexible schema languages, the market will have killed these
combinations like it has killed thousands of animal and vegetal species
and human cultures in the past century.

I do think it would be a cause to complain!

Another question to ask is "can we keep a common set of tools for
e-business and e-publication?".

This has been possible when we were working on the lower pieces of the
construction.

Is-it possible for the higher and more specialized bricks?

W3C XML Schema seems to be OK for data oriented vocabularies that are
used by e-commerce application, I don't think it's a good fit for
document oriented applications.

We are seeing the same risk of fork in the area of the semantic web
where RDF seems to be a good fit for publication (Dublin Core, NewsML,
RSS, ...) and has been rejected by all the e-commerce applications
(ebXML, UDDI, WSDL, ...).

Are these symptoms meaning that there will be a fork between a
publication web and a business web (as already discussed on this list) ?