Re: [xml-dev] XML CMM ISO9000 compliance? - was A standard approach to glueing together reusableXML fragments in prose?

hmmm

you lost me at "It is not correct to oppose dynamic process quality and 
dynamic process quality in this way."

did I miss something?

thanks

At 05:40 PM 8/26/2003 +1000, Rick Jelliffe wrote:
>pop3 wrote:
>
>>Unlike a printed page, an automated document, like any other automated 
>>data system, is dynamic and subject to change driven by external 
>>requirements that are by definition in flux. Assuming that a static state 
>>anywhere in the automated document process is acceptable is not valid IMHO.
>
>Since XML is merely syntax, all these comments really concern either 
>heirachical databases or perhaps schema
>languages for XML AFAIKS. (You can send relational data in tables using 
>XML, so it is utterly incorrect to
>postulate that any property of relational system is impossible with XML. 
>Getting terminology correct is a good
>place to start. That an XML document is an AVT with cross-links does not 
>mean that that XML document
>necessarily contain a heirarchical database nor a relational database. 
>Nor, indeed, any kind of database--in the
>sense of a collection of facts about things--at all.)
>
>>Sure, you might be able to make it work today. Or even tomorrow. But 
>>working for 20 years, or longer, is not likely to be viable because the 
>>maintenance and additional work requirements are likely to change in as 
>>yet unknown ways, driving costs that can be shown to be at least linear 
>>and more likely exponentially increasing over time.
>>
>>That kind of outcome is precisely what TQM and then PE (process 
>>engineering) and now ISO 9000 and CMM have tried to avoid.
>
>ISO 9000-3 Guidelines for applying ISO 9001 1994 to Computer Software
>ISO 9001:1994 Model for quality assurance in design, development, 
>production, installation and servicing
>ISO 9126:2000 Software Engineering: Product Quality
>
>It is not correct to oppose dynamic process quality and dynamic process 
>quality in this way.
>
>Indeed, ISO 9126 (which is concerned with quality as measurable at 
>particular instants)
>specifically mentions in part 1, 1, note 3 "This ... can be used in 
>conjunction with ISO 9001
>(which is concerned with quality assurance processes) to provide:
>* support for setting quality goals
>* support for design review, verification and validation."
>
>The schema languages for XML provide clear support for many of the 
>requirements of
>ISO 9000. For example, it clearly provides assistance for ISO 9001 s 4.4 
>Software development
>and design, and s4.10 Product inspection and testing.
>
>XML allows validation against evolving schemas. You can readily determine 
>whether a change
>to a schema is backwards compatible against existing documents (i.e. 
>either because of the kind
>of change, or by revalidating old documents). This fits in completely with 
>s4.20, Statistic
>Techniques, which deals with metrics.
>
>XML allows 
>verification/validation/mesaurement/expressing-of-customer-requirements,
>and, at the system design level, XML's web/document orientation allows a 
>dataflow/routing
>approach (e.g. SOAP) which entirely fits in with ISO 9001's requirement 
>for, e.g., remedial
>systems as a separately considered part of the process.
>
>I see XML validation as being *extremely* consistent with the ISO 9126 
>approach, b.t.w.
>
>Cheers
>Rick Jelliffe
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>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://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>