RE: Proposed restatement of syntax-based interoperability princip le ( was RE: Action item on syntax-based interoperability)

Up from the depths of cracking wise...

I don't believe syntax is fundamental in the sense that applications 
have to share a syntax to interoperate.  Again, there are too many 
existence proofs that disprove this is necessary.  On the other hand, 
I am and always have been a supporter of syntax based unification 
even if it isn't SGML/XML.  The point is that it is 

o Cheap - as long as one stops at syntax, the cost of defining, 
implementing and sharing a parser is nothing compared to the 
costs of having multiples and maintaining these over even a 
short lifecycle

o Convenient - this is a piece of the architecture of any 
information system for which it is not difficult to get buy in.
Most designer, manager, data owner or supplier will understand 
why this makes life more convenient.

Cheap and convenient may not be words that resonate loftily in 
an architectural tome, but they make sense, even, common sense. 
And that has value.  IMO, an architecture document of the 
primacy of this one should not include statements of religion, 
but statements that make good technical AND business sense 
where we are all in one business (not Spy Vs Spy) are well 
worth the bandwidth.


From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) 

Yeah.  It separates the living from the dead if your 
CAD system can't dispatch on it correctly to a 
mobile unit that isn't manufactured by the same vendor.

Don't bet your kid's life on syntax, Chris.


From: Chris Lilley []

On Saturday, October 25, 2003, 5:41:54 PM, Claude wrote:

BCLL> Portable data.  Inteoperable systems.  A priori agreements 
BCLL> about types even if informal.  HTML works because it is 
BCLL> bloody obvious even to a script kiddie what a <p> is

Yeah, its a paragraph separator, right?

BCLL> but
BCLL> someone has to tell you what <eventID>0100</eventID> is.

Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 09:43:23 UTC