Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Again, sure. That makes perfect sense. However, I like boring systems that don't want to interpret things. And reading the examples in the original post, this is what I assume the author is going for. It brings up units, for example, and mismatches in product descriptions (aperture and f-stop). These are very good questions for people doing data integration projects to be aware of. Patrick -----Original Message----- From: Simon St.Laurent [mailto:simonstl@s...] Sent: Friday, July 11, 2003 2:33 PM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Categories of Mismatches between Producer andConsumer? At 02:23 PM 7/11/2003 -0700, you wrote: >I agree with you completely. However, if you are interested in a framework >for what needs to be negotiated (by intelligent parties) before systems >are built, then, IMHO, Roger's categories are right on. > >Social context is a very good one. Reading the title of the original post, >I saw Producer as a machine and Consumer as a machine. Your interpretation >might vary :-) Machines have gotten a lot cheaper and a lot smarter. My interpretation varies because I give the machines (and their programmers) more credit for capabilities which include negotiation and interpretation, and all the "social" contexts which go with that. ----------------------------------------------------------------- The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
|
