[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
If the validation is Draconian, that's true.
What if the process is to allow the message to pass but to route
the schema output into an audit file? Nothing is held up process
wise, but ontological commitment (for lack of a better term)
is tested and variations are recorded to fold back at a later time?
As I said, eagerness and the message topic are everything.
len
From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@metalab.unc.edu]
At 9:15 AM -0500 6/8/04, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
>That's good. Except the bit about costs going up. Why
>would they?
Costs go up because you need more human intervention with a
conservative schema than a liberal one. If you require every XML
document that adds extra information you don't care about and haven't
seen before to be inspected by a human, that's more documents to look
at and therefore more human intervention; and humans are expensive
compared to computers. Depending on the system maybe the rise in cost
would not be prohibitive, and perhaps in some systems you could save
more than the cost if the humans avoided mistakes the automated
systems might make. Then again maybe not. As John Cowan alluded to,
in financial systems the cost of delay can be huge, and a system that
takes the extra time for human verification might well cost more than
correcting the mistakes in a fully automatic system. A lot depends on
the context.
|
