Lists Home |
Date Index |
6/13/2002 3:31:19 PM, "Joshua Allen" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>I was simply quoting it because it
>summed up the hopelessly idealistic attitude that such problems could
>ever be eliminated (and that by having a "repository").
Speaking of hopelessly idealistic <grin> ... what do y'all think of these
articles by Gartner that offer another take on the problem:
"Gartner recommends the following linguistic model for XML standardization:
? Devise a method for defining, classifying and validating XML vocabulary
items. Items would include elements (with their "part of speech") and
management attributes (such as ownership, where used and last revision).
? Create a grammar to construct transactions. A legal XML transaction would
be one constructed according to a publicly defined grammar from publicly
accessible vocabulary items (such as public repositories).
? Don't allow applications to release XML transactions that aren't valid
according to this linguistic model. Applications receiving such XML
transactions would "parse" transactions for such grammatical correctness
before accepting the transactions as legitimate."
I'm confused by the terminology here -- the article seems to use terms such
as "parse", "grammar", "validate", "elements" in a way that is different
than what they generally mean in the XML world, and I can't quite figure
out what they are really suggesting. Drilling down in the second link, it
looks like they're really talking about the potential for UBL, but I don't
know much about that.
Can anyone help deconstruct what these really imply for a use case such as
the one faced by the US Government? Or perhaps this is just a teaser to
get us to pay for Gartner's services to explain it all ....