Lists Home |
Date Index |
9/29/2002 4:10:12 AM, "Rick Jelliffe" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Why isn't this Schematron? It does not start with a grammar abstraction or the noxious
>supposition of data being a tree getting in the way of clear expression. There is
>a divide between clear expression (in natural language) of an assertion and the
>implementation (in XPaths) of that expression.
Fine by me! I think that illustrates my point of how relatively "low-tech" approaches that re-use
tried-and-true bits of XML++ (XPath 1.0 in this case) can add a lot more "bang for the buck" than
hundreds-of-man-year committee jobs.
>> (Ahem, the option of "we don't want your money until you enter the data to
>> our exacting standards" appeals to nerds a LOT more than it appeals to Pointy Haired
>On the other hand, it is increasingly important for suppliers of software to be able
>to demonstrate to clients/purchasers/investors that they have proper quality programs
>in place. ISO 9000 and so on
Hmm. That's a very interesting thought, and I would not at all disagree that lots of automated
testing is a Good Thing. But this doesn't persuade me that either a) a type-based "contract" will
meet many real business needs [which was probably not your intention] or b) that one can cut humans
out of the loop and simply use a type-based validation failure to "reject" a business document in any
business process sense. It seems to me that having humans in the loop for quality assurance is just
as important as having humans in the loop for security assurance (see Bruce Schneier's oft-cited
opinions described in http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm ).