• From: "Jim Wilson" <jim.wilson@k...>
• To: <xml-dev@l...>
• Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:20:48 -0600

Roger,

...
>
> Jim, does bullet 6 capture your point?
> 
...
>
> 6. Distinguish between the XML vocabulary you
> create versus the XML vocabulary that is
> actually used in practice: when creating the
> XML vocabulary, identify the optional markup
> (data) as described above. Recognize, however,
> that the XML vocabulary may be used in
> unforeseen contexts that require markup (data)
> above and beyond the provided by your XML
> vocabulary. Design your XML vocabulary to
> support these unforeseen use cases.
...

#6 does not capture my point, but other statements you wrote do. I think
it might be helpful to point out a distinction that I think applies
here. There are message-type (my terminology) XML documents, which are
one-way, one-purpose, and immutable. "Standard" Purchase orders,
invoices, and inventory reports are examples of this type. Then there
are workflow-related (my terminology) XML documents, which are routed,
and may change as various stops along a route, and may serve multiple
purposes. I don't have any concrete examples of this, but I'm sure there
are many. I have considerable experience with "message-type" XML
documents and related schema best practices and no experience with the
"workflow-type". I understand your example to be a workflow-type XML
document, the design best practices of which I can imagine, but not
comment on with any authority. I don't suggest that you recognize this
distinction in your summary, just that a different set of design best
practices may apply to each.

I hope this helps.

Best regards,
Jim Wilson

• References:
  • Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>
  • RE: Keep business-process-specific data separate?
    • From: "Costello, Roger L." <costello@m...>