[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
pop3 wrote:
> you lost me at "It is not correct to oppose dynamic process quality
> and dynamic process quality in this way."
>
> did I miss something?
From your comments, I'd say that we are talking at cross purposes. As
this is
an XML-specialist forum, usage is quite precise, otherwise we waste each
other's time.
When you say "XML", you seem to mean throwing out the RM and
putting something else in. When I say "XML", I meant the actual
specification and
documents that satisify it; XML came out of the cross-pollenation of the
publishing and communications worlds.
When you say "ISO 9000", you seem to mean the conservative practises of
companies
who claim some level of ISO 9000 glory, hence the connection with
CMM. When I say "ISO 9000" etc, I meant that actual standard and
processes that
satisfy it.
Even talking about "static" and "dynamic" "automated documents" we
managed to miss each other. I thought you were contrasting process
-based quality system (dynamic = feedback) with static quality systems
(metrics and fixed specs); as I mention, you need static metrics such
as ISO 9126 allows to meet ISO 9000, so they are not in opposition.
But actually you are not talking about ISO 9000 as such at all.
Perhaps this is what you want to say:
"Some Relational Model folk, having seen some work by some
vendors/standards in the area of hierarchical databases piggybacking
on the XML brand name--though nothing to do with XML which is a
mechanism for going from bits to annotated ranges of text--, have
invented a bogeyman that so-called "XML" is a competitor to RM.
But this bogeyman does not seem realistic, either because of
the proven superiority of RM in the past, or because of the
immaturity of non-RM development; I don't see that companies
who require mature and well-understood technologies will
be keen to jump on that bandwagon/bogeyman."
???
Cheers
Rick Jelliffe
|
