Re: [xml-dev] Will XML Schema 1.1 get traction?

[John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org>]

Len Bullard scripsit:

> The contracts officer or someone in that role type is responsible for
> that, John, and particularly in the case as Andrew suggests, where a
> separate and hopefully correctly versioned and cited code list is used.

That's fine if you are dealing with point-to-point communication.  If you
are a publisher, though, you have to make such decisions unilaterally,
because efficiencies of scale require that you not offer separately
negotiated contracts to each buyer (except perhaps in price, and most
of the time not even in price).

$EMPLOYER, for example, has a department concerned with the maintenance
of code lists in the range of 100 to 100,000 code elements.  Internal
negotiation is done on who's responsible for smaller code lists,
the code list department or the schema department (to which I belong).
Consequently, it's common for schemas to contain obviously extensible but
short code lists like "book, collection, anthology, monograph, article".

-- 
John Cowan    cowan@ccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion
that optimum or inadequate performance in the trend of competitive
activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity,
but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be
taken into account. --Ecclesiastes 9:11, Orwell/Brown version