[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
On Feb 16, 2009, at 6:53 PM, Michael Kay wrote: >> When you think in terms of "creating" XML vocabularies for >> these business process using either approach, I hope you're >> imagining that a lot of this "creating" will in fact be >> "stealing", i.e., that you're not planning to reinvent >> vocabulary for things like customer names and addresses, >> invoices, and all sorts of stuff that every business in the >> world needs to use > > There is a danger of course that if you use a vocabulary that is > rich enough > to meet the needs of every business in the world, then you are > taking on > board far more complexity than your particular business needs or can > reasonably afford. This is usually far more than just a few extra > fields > which you don't have to use if you don't want them. You can put the > customer > name in a single element <customerName>, or you can implement a 500- > page > spec that ensures you will be able to capture every nuance of > international > naming, including British royalty and Russian patronyms just as > tasters. True. But the folks that did implement that 500-page spec for customerName (and hypothetically a similarly-complex spec for every other field in an average customer-relationship situation) probably went broke a while ago, so you won't have to interoperate with them anyway. Hopefully there's a happy medium. > > > (I bought a piece of furniture yesterday and noticed that the sales > order > entry allowed a choice of dozens of different titles, from "Dr" to > "Lt Col". > But could they handle Prof Sir John Smith? Probably not. Will they > lose > business as a result? Almost certainly not.) But can they interoperate with FedEx? Cheers, --Frank > > > Michael Kay > http://www.saxonica.com/ >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] |

Cart



