Lists Home |
Date Index |
From: james anderson [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>i suggest that, when you decide to warrant a product, you would not do so
>on the basis of the name of the programming language in which it is
Yes. One warrants it meet requirements such as you suggest, reliability
of performance. A typical requirement is 99% or better uptime. There
are many more usually grounded in adherence to data types, validation
rules, and so on. So for each of these, some proof is required and
these are tested prior to acceptance of large systems. In the case
for buying or downloading small code implementations, I would expect
the warranty to be different but composable. That might be a reason
to consider RDF as a warranty language. Exotic, but we are inventing
the future here, not capturing the past.
>you would also likely consider your knowledge of
>the supplier, their performance and claims. perhaps even their
Usually that is done when soliciting bids. Yes, their supplier
enters into it. In the market I am working in today, that
is a requirement for MS systems 99.99% of the RFPs. But the
facts are, we have to pass the EULA to our customer as a result
with a very limited warranty on certain system components. I
think the industry can do better. Public systems should have
higher reliability requirements as 50 million American and
Canadian citizens might agree with this particular morning.
>you would also likely consider the intended use. would you
Certainly. That is an issue for aggregating the warranty where
systems are built up from components. The logistics professionals
deal with that sort of buy every day.
>thus, i would expect at least that at least this degree of
>expressiveness be available to the descriptions of entries in your ip
A code registry would be a means to quickly find vetted code that
met the warranty and ip requirements. We can think of that overall
as indemnification, but that word covers a lot of different warranty
types and one would need a way to compose the overall numbers
efficiently. That is why RDF descriptions come to mind. It seems
to me to be a very compelling use case for the semantic web.
>just as the name of the programming language is not sufficient, neither
>is the name for the set of universal names, nor is the name of a schema
>sufficient. it is necessary to name a concrete, rather than a generic,
Right. The namespace is the identifier for the generic object to
be supported. Associated by identification are all of the pieces
you are asking for. In other words, one does not want to lose the
XML because regardless of its 'lack of semantics', semantics are
associated to it; they are just currently badly defined and warranted,
but the lifecycle properties and the ubiquity for 'bits on the wire'
applications are good. This isn't an attempt to hang all the
indemnity risks on XML; this is an exploration of how XML and
other emerging languages such as RDF could be worked together
to get a machine processable warranty system. This might become
part of web services. Likely. However, it will require the
standards authors to write tighter standards including in some
cases, behavioral object models, and it will require the
implementors to pass the conformance and compliance tests
before they are able to use a namespace identifier that
associates with that standard. I would not expect this
for all languages and applications. As you say, intended
use is evaluated. But I think that such a system once
in place and practiced, would quickly be adopted by more
than a few organizations.
>this search space is not flatland and the name of the namespace of the
>gi of the root element will not get you there.
It is a place to start. Marrying XML application language
descriptions to object models, insisting on conformance
and compliance testing for implementations that claim
by namespace assignment to conform to these, registering
these claims, and insisting on warranties will get you there.
Will this cost more? Yes. Will this slow down 'the fast
Internet world', one can only hope.
"Wings without eyes make for unheedy haste." - Midsummer Nights Dream -
Willy The Shake