[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
You're right, I overstated the case. I was thinking in the context of
what I had just read on the CAM page, and what I mean is that the
situation that I'm addressing doesn't look like the kind of ambiguity
that CAM seems to be addressing. So, yes, there is ambiguity in the
patent world, like everywhere else; and yes, I don't see CAM helping
with the problem at hand.
Bruce B. Cox
SA4XMLT
+1-703-306-2606
-----Original Message-----
From: Hunsberger, Peter [mailto:Peter.Hunsberger@STJUDE.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2004 10:49 AM
To: Cox, Bruce; Bullard, Claude L (Len); bry@itnisk.com
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] Are people really using Identity constraints
specified in XML schema?
Cox, Bruce <Bruce.Cox@USPTO.GOV> writes:
> In this context, I think CAM is not appropriate. Published patent
> documents are not dynamic, there are no transactions between just
> discovered business partners, so there is no ambiguity of context.
> The content validation mechanism of CAM appears to be mostly a
> framework for local customization, which I think would not justify the
> overhead of CAM for this purpose.
>
Even without dynamic partner discovery I'm interested in your statement
that there is no ambiguity of context. Business rule application seems
to be one of those areas where multiple conflicting contexts pop up all
the time.
Perhaps the patent world is well enough understood that you feel it's
not an issue? Or perhaps, you don't see a way in CAM to help you
navigate the particular types of ambiguity you are up against? That
seems more likely given your last statement; I'm guessing that the
particular problem domain you're working on doesn't have multiple
organizations trying to view the same content in different ways?
|
