Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Costello, Roger L. wrote: > I end up with an XML Schema that is independent of any specific > application. Thus, it supports the unanticipated user. > > I don't see data flows, application architecture diagrams, or business > processes entering into the picture at all. > It's often a misconception that publishing XML Schema and throwing some example instances along means the end of making communication totally clear and transparent, that opposite end of the transmission line, be it user, developer or machine, would know exactly what to fill in, when to transmit, what to do on error, which schema or schema sets to use and so on. Your second question makes it clear that precisely due to the lack of accompanying documentation on the business and corresponding document flow, the electronic counterpart of business process cannot be properly established. Think of taking a bus from home to town. The bus company just tells you "board a huge yellow vehicle, pay the money, sit down and wait till your destination is near." But without publishing the time schedules (when to transmit), other service line available (which document to use), emergency numbers (what to do on error), and so on, one would hardly find the bus company's buses useful. So, to answer your question more directly, it's not that schema supports unanticipated user *and therefore* one doesn't see data flow; it is more like one misses out on specifying the data flow, so one mistakenly thinks the schema supports generic unanticipated users. regards, Chin Chee-Kai
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |
