RE: [ubl-ndrsc] more input

["Schwarzhoff, Kelly" <kelly.schwarzhoff@commerceone.com>]

Hi,
 
Are there specific use cases--and prioritization of those use cases--that
drive these various design rules? The reason I ask is that some of the
design rules don't seem to be driven by the practical technology and
business constraints. Most obvious, I'm thinking about the "Processing
Requirements" design which says schemas should not be designed around
computer resources needed to process the documents.
 
Having spent my last 3 years building and designing XML tools, I'd have to
say that design rule seems rather theoretical. Ultimately, the schemas and
documents you produce must work with tools; The less tools they support--or
even the more expensive the use of tools is--, the less adoption of your
schemas and standards, and thus driving up implementation and integration
costs. This is especially the case in critical supply chain integration
scenarios where throughput, high availability, deployment topology, etc. is
key.
 
Kelly

-----Original Message-----
From: CRAWFORD, Mark [mailto:MCRAWFORD@lmi.org]
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2001 6:34 AM
To: UBL Design Rules (E-mail)
Subject: [ubl-ndrsc] more input



fyi. 

The attached AgXML Standards Development Guidelines were recently posted to
the X12 Design Rules listserve.  

<<Standards Development Guidelines.doc>> 

Mark