[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Sure. Systems that have legacy schemas have to do this all
the time. We're back to structuralists vs free traders.
www.tdan.com/i030hy01.htm
Note the use of mappings to create the 'understanding'.
A pattern/phenotype/form IS a map. Your question is not
one of possibility, but degree. How much energy/time
can you devote to the mapping process itself? Put
another way, is this a discovery process?
If the performance metric is overconstrained, this will
fail. If it can be relaxed, discovery is affordable.
len
From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
>I assume that this question has as its impetus ...
Here's my motivation for the question: in a large, complex Enterprise you
may know the kinds of "things" that need to be moved around (e.g., Book,
BookCover, etc) but you don't have a-priori knowledge of the specific
transactions that will be needed.
So, is it feasible to simply declare a bunch of components (that everyone
understands), which may be dynamically assembled by one system and shipped
to another system where the assembly is dynamically understood.
/Roger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>
|
