RE: [xml-dev] RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?

["Paul Spencer" <xml-dev-list@boynings.co.uk>]

Roger,

The point I didn't make very well is that there are often two business
processes. In your example, the first is the internal processing of the
message. The second is the process relating to the physical transportation.
Many of the second type of process can share common internal processing. My
example was sending messages through the UK Government Gateway. These all
share the first process - routing based on the message type, timestamping
etc., but the second process could be submission of a tax return, applying
for benefits, applying for a driving test or many other possibilities.

Also, don't forget the power of Schematron, CAM etc. These let you use a
common schema (of the W3C XML Schema type) as data is added or removed from
a message as it passes through a business process while allowing additional
checking of message content relating to different stages of the business
process. As an example, the OASIS Election Markup Language has a schema for
an election list. This is used in many parts of the electoral process, and I
know of cases where Schematron is used to provide additional checking based
on the specific process.

Regards

Paul

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Costello, Roger L. [mailto:costello@mitre.org]
> Sent: 29 January 2009 13:07
> To: 'xml-dev@lists.xml.org'
> Subject: [xml-dev] RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
>
>
>
> Hi Folks,
>
> This has been, for me, an enlightening discussion. Thanks so much
> to Jim, Frank, Paul, and Len. Awesome responses!
>
>
> Here are the lessons I've learned:
>
> 1. An XML vocabulary does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in a
> context. Specifically, it exists for the purpose of enabling a
> business process.
>
> 2. If an XML vocabulary does not support the data needed by the
> business process then it is not serving the very purpose for
> which it was created.
>
> 3. "Business-process-specific data versus
> business-process-independent data" is a false distinction. There
> is only kind of data: data for a business process, and there is
> only one kind of XML vocabulary: vocabulary that supports a
> business process.
>
> 4. An XML vocabulary must support the data needs of both the data
> producer and the data receiver.
>
> 5. If there is markup (data) needed by the receiver but not the
> producer then make it optional. Thus the producer can omit the
> optional markup while the receiver can add it.
>
> 6. The conclusion that I came to in my transportation example -
> keep business-process-specific data separate - is false, for the
> above reasons.
>
>
> Do you agree? Have I captured all the lessons?
>
> /Roger
> _______________________________________________________________________
>
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS
> to support XML implementation and development. To minimize
> spam in the archives, you must subscribe before posting.
>
> [Un]Subscribe/change address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/
> Or unsubscribe: xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org
> subscribe: xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org
> List archive: http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> List Guidelines: http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.php
>