Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
If the validation is Draconian, that's true. What if the process is to allow the message to pass but to route the schema output into an audit file? Nothing is held up process wise, but ontological commitment (for lack of a better term) is tested and variations are recorded to fold back at a later time? As I said, eagerness and the message topic are everything. len From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] At 9:15 AM -0500 6/8/04, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >That's good. Except the bit about costs going up. Why >would they? Costs go up because you need more human intervention with a conservative schema than a liberal one. If you require every XML document that adds extra information you don't care about and haven't seen before to be inspected by a human, that's more documents to look at and therefore more human intervention; and humans are expensive compared to computers. Depending on the system maybe the rise in cost would not be prohibitive, and perhaps in some systems you could save more than the cost if the humans avoided mistakes the automated systems might make. Then again maybe not. As John Cowan alluded to, in financial systems the cost of delay can be huge, and a system that takes the extra time for human verification might well cost more than correcting the mistakes in a fully automatic system. A lot depends on the context.
|
