In article <v03007803aeeb52cdc6d7@[194.151.26.26]>, Gerard Freriks
<[log in to unmask]> writes
>Bye the way SGML is a technical way to implement the Document Metaphore as
>opposed to the Database Metaphore.
>EDIFACT is a very decent envelope, but no good way of general flexible
>marking up of documents so that the context is stored with the data.
Now we're talking!! :-)
As you say, SGML / document metaphor will have many problems to address
and many will be the same as for EDIFACT so there is scope for cross
fertilisation.
Interested to hear of your EDIFACT dialects. Is this because you have
not got nationally standardised messages or because you have got
different profiles in use? We hope to avoid 'dialects' because we will
be using nationally defined messages and nationaly agreed profiles. I
think it is also very important not to claim that any one solution - be
it SGML or EDIFACT - will magically resolve all our problems. In
practice we are surely talking of making progress in small steps and
learning from anything and everything that has gone before
I have no problem with document and database metaphors and agree with
most of your comments about EDIFACT. However, I think of it as a 'form'
rather than as an 'envelope'. As you imply, it is designed to enable
data exchange between databases.
SGML will presumably need to 'link' to databases so the two metaphors
can co-exist. How will it do that?
--
John Williams
Email: [log in to unmask]
Fax: 01483 440928
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|