OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Identifying Data for Interchange [was: XML Components]

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Identifying Data for Interchange [was: XML Components]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 10:56:21 -0600

True enough, but up front, I am interested in knowing that 
the standard proposed describes the source conditions as 
precisely as needed, first, then uses descriptions that 
are widely understood.  Sorry, Walter, but I do have 
to ensure that the receiving nodes understand particular 
items a particular way; I don't have to be sure that they 
all implement in a particular way unless the implementation 
affects performance constraints in a way unacceptable to 
the overall communication, but Mars Observer proved the 
value of shared interpretation of the numbers.

Yes position data is better than distance for applications 
I deal with.  To those, we add timestamps because we need 
this data not once, but frequently.  We are plotting in real 
time on a map.  Frequency matters as does speed because we 
are calculating not distance, but arrival time given alternative 
routes and timestamped conditions on the routes.  Not everyone 
needs that data so we would not propose a generic position 
element to be used by any application.

1. The timestamp has to also be standardized.  Not hard 
but don't ignore it.  XML Schema datatype threads have 
exposed the issues here so we don't need to repeat them.

2. The representation must be processable fast enough such 
that the near real time update of the map appears to be 
true real time to the person on the console.  The accuracy 
of the actual recorded data must be close enough for litigation. 
Those who do aircraft accident simulation for investigation 
understand this.

It is difficult (no duh) to write a standard for data without 
reconciling the target applications.  It is dangerous to write 
a standard that tightly couples to the target applications. The 
middle ground is about right but tends to make everyone equally 
dissatisfied.  No free lunch.
Extreme Programming artifacts are dubious standards candidates 
when initially fielded.  If they survive and thrive, they are 
good candidates, but that is true of any data application 
regardless of the methodology.   For cost reasons, the test 
of standardization should be success in the market.  Everything 
else is a specification for an application, and in these, the 
XP fans have it right.   Specifications should only become 
standards when proven to work for multiple parties with quantified 
and valid interests.  That effectively halves the life cycle 
of a standard.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 12:03:50 -0500, Roger L. Costello <costello@mitre.org> 

> Instead, define precisely one, unambiguous "interchange standard".  This
> becomes the "lingua franca" interchange format.

Sigh.  The eternal optimism of nerds ;-)  that human factors can somehow be 
assumed away. 


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS