Re: XML Gave A War, But Nobody Came

[Robert Dakin <dakin@pcug.org.au>]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2000 12:31:14 -0500, Rachel Foerster wrote:

>[snipped]
>
>Therefore, why not spend our collective efforts on developing a common
>framework/infrastructure that will support interoperability of any and all
>variants? That's much more achievable than developing a single common
>document format and then getting the world to adopt it.

Having lurked for some time, I am venturing from my bunker to say
a few words.

I would have thought that he natural OO approach would be  to 
think of a PO (or whatever) as a class and develop a tree of PO's.
The root of the tree would comprise a common subset of data
and functionality, and descendent classes would elaborate parent
classes to satisfy real application contexts.
Root classes would most naturally belong in Core Components.

I had assumed that an OO approach to EC would include this idea, 
extending to multi-transaction scenarios - but I have
not seen much evidence of this way of thinking in recent ebXML 
material.  Please correct me if I have missed something.

By exploiting polymorphism and inheritance it should be 
relatively easy to construct software components that handle 
any of a subtree of PO's or whatever and achieve interoperability
between them.

Comments?

Robert Dakin
___________________________________________________________
Dr Robert Dakin
Dakin Technology
daktec@pcug.org.au
Home page:   http://www.pcug.org.au/~daktec/
Tel: +61 2 6255 1436  Fax: +61 2 6255 1304