|
That's true and that means the
standard has to have a means to say 'this is dynamic, ie,
functional and you will want to put a measuring stick and measurer here'.. This is what ANY does in some respect: note the presence of a negotiation by
location. Good point. len -----Original Message----- Len, > Everywhere one finds
a wildcard, there is an unconstrained decision list and that means > there is no static
consensus. It might be a good idea to push that off into its own
space > and work out why
this function isn't converging. Yes that can be true. However in some important cases
there doesn't need to be consensus, the wildcard is the agreed location for
private data to be carried within the body of the public standard. I don't want
the standards body to legislate on what should be in this area, thats a matter
between me and my trading partners, but I *do* want them to provide the
location so that I can respect and work within the spirit of the standard and
at the same time be unconstrained in my business model. My company has no
desire to become a standards body with all that that entails, so we are strongly
motivated to use the standard vocabulary agreed by the industry as a whole, but
not at the expense of doing business. Fraser.
On 29/08/2007, Len Bullard <cbullard@hiwaay.net> wrote:
Another change is to
break up the industry standards into smaller independent pieces. It
would be interesting to see a complexity assessment model of various industry
standards and see what the local rate of change is and for what kinds of information.
It's easier to blame the process or the mammals manning the helms and sometimes
that is right, but it might also be that the wrong tool is being applied or the
information is dynamic by nature (somewhere a feedback loop is cycling
chaotically). Everywhere one finds a
wildcard, there is an unconstrained decision list and that means there is no
static consensus. It might be a good idea to push that off into its
own space and work out why this function isn't converging. len
> The industry standards need to move at a faster
pace Agree entirely, however the motivations of some are to
constrain change, and concensus is typically hard to acheive. An industry
standards body also often finds itself trapped between the competing interests
of its members and ... well I could go on, but we all understand the problem. My motivation is to encourage the standards body to
allow for private extensions in schemata. There is no reason why a standards
body needs or should be in the middle of trading partner agreements which
manifest themselves in data exchanges private to those individual
organisations. The concern often expressed is that private extension
degenerates the standard, but the reality is, without the ability to accomodate
change (both breaking an non breaking) and allowing participants to adopt
change at a time of their own choosing, then a standard has no future. Natural
market pressures will drive adoption. Extensibility (call it
forwards/backwards compatibility if you like) is certainly part of the
solution, and, as you point out, careful selction of what should be mandatory
and optional, and implementation of various validation schemes that support the
level of compatibility/tolerance that an individual or pair of trading partners
require, and .... well you get the picture. |