Duane, I'm glad that you've found this so productive, and am surprised that you agree 100% with my
last point. I'm still not sure I understand everything else you're talking about, but do want to
make one comment:
Duane Nickull wrote <snipped>:
> > Also, given the current state of
> > software engineering, I don't believe that we can be completely deterministic in schema
> > analysis and design using context applied to CCs, so it will only be an aid.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> Matt MacKenzie and I have implemented a rudimentry Proof of concept
> which I have demonstrated for over three months now. It can be done.
> Its' in the Wrox book called "Professional ebXML Foundations" with code
> samples and a full explanation.
>
I doubt if your PoC is pushing the envelope at all. Any decent programmer can write code to say:
If context == (A,B,C,D,E) then BIE = X + Y
If context == (1,2,3,4,5) then BIE = X + Y + Z
The tricks are in adequately defining A, B, C, D, E, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and verifying that in all
expected usages of the first context, BIE really does = X + Y, and that in the second context it's
X + Y + Z. Those are problems of analysis, which in the current state of software engineering is
still more of a craft and an art than a rigorous engineering discipline. This is why I think
context applied to CCs can only be an aid and not a deterministic way to arrive at schema
requirements.
--
Michael C. Rawlins, Rawlins EC Consulting
www.rawlinsecconsulting.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ebxml-dev list is sponsored by OASIS.
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.ebxml.org/ob/adm.pl>
