• To: Christian Nentwich <christian@s...>
• Subject: RE: A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabularies to Implement Large (Complex) Systems
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <len.bullard@i...>
• Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 10:19:05 -0600
• Cc: xml-dev@l..., "Roger L. Costello" <costello@m...>

Actually, indirection is the least of the problems as the system 
increases in complexity.  It is the identification of shared 
semantics and resolving these differences that makes it hard. 
Indirection via metadata is the solution.   Scaling will break 
down anyway.   That is why data translation is such a big 
business.

My apologies for not having sufficient time for this debate. 
I didn't come back from DC to a 'rest'.  I came back to a 
very deep stack, multiple overlapping tasks, and an impossible
schedule.  One has to like chaos.  But anytime I feel sorry 
for myself, I watch CNN and the see the guys and gals welding 
junk to their humvees.  My job is easy. 

len

On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 09:37:37 +0000, Christian Nentwich
<christian@s...> wrote:
> Roger,
> 
> let's see:
>  - The first approach does not scale - it will get too complex when
>  you then want to reuse your invoice to build a yet larger model. Too
>  much indirection to resolve.

• Prev by Date: Re: A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabularies to Implement Large (Complex) Systems
• Next by Date: Re: Query decomposition [was: What niche is XQuery targeting?]
• Previous by thread: Re: A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabularies to Implement Large (Complex) Systems
• Next by thread: RE: A Systematic Approach to using Simple XML Vocabularies to Implement Large (Complex) Systems
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread