[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]

  • To: "Marc de Graauw" <marc@m...>, "Bryan Rasmussen" <bry@i...>, <xml-dev@l...>
  • Subject: RE: ISO 11179
  • From: "Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@b...>
  • Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 06:44:30 -0400
  • Thread-index: AcVtl4sItj7SgU3hQ0yRF4yIfb9FJwADSgbgAAErrUY=
  • Thread-topic: ISO 11179

Title: RE: ISO 11179
I believe that this criterion (sometimes called the "thunk factor") is a completely erroneous way of evaluating specifications that fails to take into account other factors.
 
Joe


From: Marc de Graauw [mailto:marc@m...]
Sent: Fri 6/10/2005 6:12 AM
To: 'Bryan Rasmussen'; xml-dev@l...
Subject: RE: ISO 11179

|  Please, any commentaries on ISO 11179 usage either for or against.

|  Bryan Rasmussen

I work on a project which uses the UBL Naming & Design Rules. Those are
based on the ebXML CCTS, which in turn is based on ISO 11179 (which as such
does not contain anything about XML). So I need to read and understand:

ISO 11179 Part 1 - 32 pages
ISO 11179 Part 2 - 16 pages
ISO 11179 Part 3 - 108 pages
ISO 11179 Part 4 - 16 pages
ISO 11179 Part 5 - 20 pages
ISO 11179 Part 6 - 72 pages
ebXML Core Components Technical Specification - 113 pages
UBL Naming & Design Rules - 104 pages

So I have one critique: bloat.

Marc

(Now, I could count the pages for this other project where I have to
understand XML + XSD + SOAP + WSDL + WS-Security + WS-Reliability + ... ,
come to think of it, the naming stuff above might not be that bad at all :-)
 


-----------------------------------------------------------------
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://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>


Site Map | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Trademarks
Free Stylus Studio XML Training:
W3C Member