• To: xml-dev <xml-dev@l...>
• Subject: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• From: Ronald Bourret <rpbourret@r...>
• Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 03:49:57 -0800
• References: <NCBBKFMJCLIMOBIGKFMJMEAIHCAA.ldodds@i...> <200201301936.g0UJaOj12628@d...> <3C58F0CA.C6D43D92@r...> <m3zo2uzy6j.fsf@l...> <3C5917B3.31BCA83C@r...> <m3bsfamb7e.fsf@d...>

"Steven R. Newcomb" wrote:
> If A and B haven't chosen to cooperate (or, more
> accurately, if they don't both happen to use (any of)
> the same base architecture(s), for whatever reason),
> AFs have nothing to offer.

Ah, this was never clear to me.

> The act of cooperating can have many benefits in
> addition to the benefit of reliable information
> interchange, while retaining local control of the
> details.  AFs just provide a tangible, workable goal
> for cooperative efforts that use syntax as the basis of
> cooperation.  That's not an insignificant thing.

In other words, AFs present a nice technical solution to the following
political problems:

1) We agree on most stuff, but you want child A (which I don't care
about) and I want child B (which you don't care about).

2) We can't agree on naming (which, as anybody knows, is what people
spend 2/3 of their time arguing about).

You're right, that's not insignificant.

-- Ron
So, basically, the companies did agree on a vocabulary and its form, but
got

• Prev by Date: Re: bioinformatics, XML
• Next by Date: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Previous by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Next by thread: Re: Co-operating with Architectural Forms
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread