Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
From: "Mike Champion" <mc@x...> > 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 ). I can "imagine" a case where several institutions in a finance-related industry are using a common schema for applications, but each institution uses Schematron to vet applications based on their business rules. Ultimately, the (encrypted) Schematron schemas could be uploaded to the client-side so that a single application can be vetted by agents onsite. Now, for this kind of use, the more type-aware Schematron can be, the better. Cheers Rick Jelliffe
|
