Lists Home |
Date Index |
you lost me at "It is not correct to oppose dynamic process quality and
dynamic process quality in this way."
did I miss something?
At 05:40 PM 8/26/2003 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>>Unlike a printed page, an automated document, like any other automated
>>data system, is dynamic and subject to change driven by external
>>requirements that are by definition in flux. Assuming that a static state
>>anywhere in the automated document process is acceptable is not valid IMHO.
>Since XML is merely syntax, all these comments really concern either
>heirachical databases or perhaps schema
>languages for XML AFAIKS. (You can send relational data in tables using
>XML, so it is utterly incorrect to
>postulate that any property of relational system is impossible with XML.
>Getting terminology correct is a good
>place to start. That an XML document is an AVT with cross-links does not
>mean that that XML document
>necessarily contain a heirarchical database nor a relational database.
>Nor, indeed, any kind of database--in the
>sense of a collection of facts about things--at all.)
>>Sure, you might be able to make it work today. Or even tomorrow. But
>>working for 20 years, or longer, is not likely to be viable because the
>>maintenance and additional work requirements are likely to change in as
>>yet unknown ways, driving costs that can be shown to be at least linear
>>and more likely exponentially increasing over time.
>>That kind of outcome is precisely what TQM and then PE (process
>>engineering) and now ISO 9000 and CMM have tried to avoid.
>ISO 9000-3 Guidelines for applying ISO 9001 1994 to Computer Software
>ISO 9001:1994 Model for quality assurance in design, development,
>production, installation and servicing
>ISO 9126:2000 Software Engineering: Product Quality
>It is not correct to oppose dynamic process quality and dynamic process
>quality in this way.
>Indeed, ISO 9126 (which is concerned with quality as measurable at
>specifically mentions in part 1, 1, note 3 "This ... can be used in
>conjunction with ISO 9001
>(which is concerned with quality assurance processes) to provide:
>* support for setting quality goals
>* support for design review, verification and validation."
>The schema languages for XML provide clear support for many of the
>ISO 9000. For example, it clearly provides assistance for ISO 9001 s 4.4
>and design, and s4.10 Product inspection and testing.
>XML allows validation against evolving schemas. You can readily determine
>whether a change
>to a schema is backwards compatible against existing documents (i.e.
>either because of the kind
>of change, or by revalidating old documents). This fits in completely with
>Techniques, which deals with metrics.
>and, at the system design level, XML's web/document orientation allows a
>approach (e.g. SOAP) which entirely fits in with ISO 9001's requirement
>for, e.g., remedial
>systems as a separately considered part of the process.
>I see XML validation as being *extremely* consistent with the ISO 9126
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription