Transformational reciprocity (was [xml-dev] XML's greatest culturaladvan

["Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@simonstl.com>]

Perfect.  We're actually getting somewhere - this is the kind of 
conversation I want to have.

On 4/28/13 10:08 AM, David Lee wrote:
> Oh contraire  ! I have no problem letting anyone's data into guarded
> fortress (*). Almost always it can be converted lossless and
> reversible with no loss of precision, structure or semantics. And if
> you want to use another "fortress" instead go for it.

So you're willing to build transformations to get senders' data into 
your systems.

Just one time per conversation, or regularly, or am I misreading that 
and you're really only willing to let them send you data in your own 
specified format?

[No need to answer in detail or give away organizational names, or the 
store...]

> Its the other way around I am annoyed with.  Trying to get anything
> but the most trivial of data into the Worlds Best Format (JSON) or
> actually almost any other popular format is what annoys me. But give
> me JSON all day ... I will convert it into something I can use and
> give it back to you whenever you like in your format of choice.  But
> make me give you MY data in JSON and then complain that it doesnt fit
> ... yea that annoys me.

The sending direction sounds more difficult.  Is the problem that

(1) JSON formats are underspecified,
(2) JSON formats aren't a natural conversion from your usual internal 
formats,
(3) The receiving side isn't responsive to queries, or
(4) You don't feel you should have to transform your outgoing data?

Similarly, do you convert your data to the XML formats the recipients 
expect?  (I'm guessing that would address 1 and 2 at least partially.)

Thanks,
-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/