- From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <len.bullard@intergraph.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2005 11:32:58 -0600
- To: "'Rice, Ed (HP.com)'" <ed.rice@hp.com>, Chris Lilley <chris@w3.org>, "Pawson, David" <David.Pawson@rnib.org.uk>
- Cc: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>, www-tag@w3.org
True. My assumption is that over time it evolves into a stable set. In situations where the information is highly dynamic or orbits strangely, the utility of schemas is questionable and in fact, the utility of XML itself degrades. Initially, one assumes that as the document/messages are being designed, evolution is rapid and local. An observable characteristic of scale is the tendancy to slow down the rate of change given other constraints (costs to field updates, costs to create new resources, etc.). Even when the versions are periodic, the rate of change diminishes as the coverage becomes complete (the tendancy of an evolving system is to take over many niches but that is the evolution of the compound document schema; within components, the rate of change is slowed). A catalog documents the operational space (here are the languages I use in combination or as isolates) which is determined by any number of constraints (eg, role, personal preference, etc). There may be a better term for that but I don't have one handy. len -----Original Message----- From: www-tag-request@w3.org [mailto:www-tag-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Rice, Ed (HP.com) I think it depends on how dynamic the information is. If you expect the catalog to change rapidly, caching the content can cause more problems than it solves.
Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 17:33:38 UTC