[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi Rick,
Do you have references availible for this (I would like to use it in
the conclusion of a paper):
> but it takes six years for software
> to become
> mature;
I do not understand what a databinders profile is.
Do you refer to the an idea of a partition of XML Schema as in OWL (DL/Lite)
Please clearify.
Was there (at any time since Rec-Status or even before) a general
notion that XML Schema could be seperated by features into
Basic/Advanced or some similar divison.
Thank you,
Gregor
2005/4/29, Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au>:
> Bob Foster wrote:
>
> > Oh, is that the point the REC is very clear on? ;-}
>
> Perhaps Henry is using "clear" in the sense that a needle in a haystack
> is clear
> when you sit on it :-)
>
> But the root problem isn't the needle nor the organization of the haystack,
> it is the size of the haystack (i.e., the technology's size hinders
> efforts to fully
> implement it, defeating the goal of certainty which should be the
> primary goal
> of a schema language; especially because it is under-layered.)
>
> I don't want to be a broken record, but it takes six years for software
> to become
> mature; so, for libraries and applications, XML is mature, XML
> Schemas still
> has 2 years to go, and XQuery has maybe 7 years to go. Caveat emptor:
> when you use semi-mature technologies you will have problems that you
> wouldn't (or shouldn't) have with mature technologies. Even if XML Schemas
> were layered properly and more explicable, we still would be having a
> certain
> amount of interoperability issues just attributable to immaturity. The
> same issue
> affects RELAX NG, Schematron, ATMs, and any software: any "I told you
> so" feeling from those of us who complained about the size of XML Schemas
> (or its goals) early and often should be tempered by that. The real
> test will
> come in a couple of years time: if there are still interop problems by
> the time
> XML Schemas software should be mature, I think it would clearly show
> that the technology is intrinsically flawed, at least as far as layering
> goes,
> and in need of a thorough revision or refactoring. Until then, trying to
> get
> a Databinder's Profile (Common XML Schemas?) is probably more rational.
>
> Cheers
> Rick Jelliffe
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 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>
>
>
|
