Costello, Roger L. wrote:
> I end up with an XML Schema that is independent of any specific
> application. Thus, it supports the unanticipated user.
>
> I don't see data flows, application architecture diagrams, or business
> processes entering into the picture at all.
>
It's often a misconception that publishing XML Schema and throwing some
example instances along means the end of making communication totally
clear and transparent, that opposite end of the transmission line, be it
user, developer or machine, would know exactly what to fill in, when to
transmit, what to do on error, which schema or schema sets to use and so
on. Your second question makes it clear that precisely due to the lack
of accompanying documentation on the business and corresponding document
flow, the electronic counterpart of business process cannot be properly
established.
Think of taking a bus from home to town. The bus company just tells you
"board a huge yellow vehicle, pay the money, sit down and wait till
your destination is near." But without publishing the time schedules
(when to transmit), other service line available (which document to
use), emergency numbers (what to do on error), and so on, one would
hardly find the bus company's buses useful.
So, to answer your question more directly, it's not that schema supports
unanticipated user *and therefore* one doesn't see data flow; it is
more like one misses out on specifying the data flow, so one mistakenly
thinks the schema supports generic unanticipated users.
regards,
Chin Chee-Kai
