XML.orgXML.org
FOCUS AREAS |XML-DEV |XML.org DAILY NEWSLINK |REGISTRY |RESOURCES |ABOUT
OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]
RE: [xml-dev] How to represent step-by-step procedures in=?UTF-8?Q?XML=3F?=

LEGO MindStorm is what I would point to for this.

The visual side - can be done using MindMap style XML representation.

Then the logic inside each "box" can be coded by low-code methods in the boxes.

When you click "run" then the actual code is generated (could be XSLT for sure).

This was the approach we used for the VisualScript product 1,000 years ago - and it worked great for BPSS, BPEL, BPMN, HTML, _javascript_ and on. Sadly we were 10 years ahead of the market with this at the time. Fortunately LEGO did MindStorm - and done very well with that.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [xml-dev] How to represent step-by-step procedures in XML?
From: Michael Kay <mike@saxonica.com>
Date: Sun, August 21, 2022 7:23 am
To: Roger L Costello <costello@mitre.org>
Cc: "xml-dev@lists.xml.org" <xml-dev@lists.xml.org>

I am seeking a high-level XML representation, one that is understandable by a manager and at the same time is sufficiently detailed that it can be executed



That's the holy grail of computer science - ever since COBOL, people have been trying to find a language that was simple enough for managers to understand but precise enough to express all the detail. No-one has succeeded. I don't think it's a language problem; I think it's an abstraction problem. "Managers" want to reason about the process at a level of abstraction that doesn't involve the sordid detail (handling of exception cases, in particular) that's needed to make the process executable.

I remember well a conversation with the marketing manager of a cable TV company, talking about the process for on-boarding new customers. We kept asking "what if" questions, and the manager got quite frustrated: he was only interested in the success case where everything went smoothly, and wanted someone else to worry about what to do when things went wrong. His staff in the call centre were also quite frustrated: 90% of the calls they took were dealing with things that went wrong, and that weren't covered by the process manual.

An executable process needs to deal not just with the things that often go wrong, it needs to deal with all the things that can ever go wrong, and that's a level of detail that most managers simply aren't interested in.

Michael Kay
Saxonica


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index]


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 1993-2007 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS