Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
9/29/2002 4:10:12 AM, "Rick Jelliffe" <ricko@a...> wrote: > >Why isn't this Schematron? It does not start with a grammar abstraction or the noxious >supposition of data being a tree getting in the way of clear expression. There is >a divide between clear expression (in natural language) of an assertion and the >implementation (in XPaths) of that expression. Fine by me! I think that illustrates my point of how relatively "low-tech" approaches that re-use tried-and-true bits of XML++ (XPath 1.0 in this case) can add a lot more "bang for the buck" than hundreds-of-man-year committee jobs. > >> (Ahem, the option of "we don't want your money until you enter the data to >> our exacting standards" appeals to nerds a LOT more than it appeals to Pointy Haired >> Bosses!). > >On the other hand, it is increasingly important for suppliers of software to be able >to demonstrate to clients/purchasers/investors that they have proper quality programs >in place. ISO 9000 and so on Hmm. That's a very interesting thought, and I would not at all disagree that lots of automated testing is a Good Thing. But this doesn't persuade me that either a) a type-based "contract" will meet many real business needs [which was probably not your intention] or b) that one can cut humans out of the loop and simply use a type-based validation failure to "reject" a business document in any business process sense. It seems to me that having humans in the loop for quality assurance is just as important as having humans in the loop for security assurance (see Bruce Schneier's oft-cited opinions described in http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/09/mann.htm ).
|
