Musing over Namespaces

[Len Bullard]

Eiland, David wrote:
> 
>         While the conversation has primarily focused on the Company
> (Organization) level, it is my experience working with the Fortune 500 that
> the same name is often used differently between departments/functions.  Then
> considering buying/selling of other divisions/companies that periodically
> occurs, the Namespace mechanism must be fluid.

Precisely.  Views were proposed originally with that in mind.  Consider
a 
project as a performance in which processes are controlled via the
visibility of 
nested views.  A WBS (Work Breakdown Structure) is that.  Treat it
dynamically.  
Each level of that organization (not really a pure nesting but for the
sake 
of discussion) has responsibilities for opening and closing processes
and 
proving a valid performance by proving a valid deliverable.  Any systems 
engineer is familiar with the models needed.  XML is just another means
of 
enabling a loose coupling among the systems.  

In the days when this was proposed using SGML (late eighties), there
were 
not only concerns about the buying and selling, but organizing
performances 
across cultures as well.

The model writ large has aspects of real time systems design.

len



xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/ and on CD-ROM/ISBN 981-02-3594-1
To unsubscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
unsubscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)