[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: "W. E. Perry" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 10:50:12 -0500
Somewhere a bit has to change state - The Doctor
As part of the other threads on tools, what's core,
what's application choice, etc., the metadata vs
data chasm is intrigueing. At the data level,
a group wants to describe a thing and exchange
a description. At another layer a group wants
to describe the first group's description and
exchange that. Opinions stacked on opinions
with no way to say who is right, only if one
agrees and will do what is expected of them.
Then one realizes they aren't describing anything,
they are locked in a debate on what the Tools
have to say and can't tell the difference between
the opinions of the humans and the opinions of the
Mammals At Work with Machine Overlords. Gad,
we got here fast with this danged WWW. :-)
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: W. E. Perry [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 10:38 AM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len)
Subject: Re: Copyrighting schemas, Hailstorm
I'm with Len. And, of course, competitive schemata will require that the
platform for transaction *execution* be one which does not require a priori
agreement between the parties on the form of the transaction data structure.
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> They can do that and we can write schemas just as fast
> that run just as well on their technology.
> Note the beginnings of the terminology wars in that
> what Microsoft calls orchestration, IBM calls choreography.
> And so it will go like different parts of the local
> Arts Council groups fighting for control of the civic
> stage: little fish acting like big fish, except this
> is big fish acting like little fish. Gotta love it.
> Such copyrights will ensure the schemas will have
> strong competitors. They may be doing us a favor.