On 8/27/07, Bernhard Eversberg <ev_at_biblio.tu-bs.de> wrote:
> Yes, but. Mathematicians, for example, have a different notion which
> is not easily defined but it has not much to do with taste. They usually
> agree about a proof being elegant - which wouldn't happen were it
> a matter of taste alone.
Ah, but mathematicians don't change the definition of "elegant" by
using a different notation; they're more talking about different
approaches to solve a problem, so I feel the comparison is a tad off.
But I think we can agree that "elegance" is in the eye of the
beholder, so let's just leave it at that. :)
> OK, I'm full well prepared to jump the XML bandwagon if only I saw the
> full-scale, fully operative applications that demonstrate its vast
> superiority over the legacy systems we have. Where are they?
They are being used in non-library places. :) To put it in technical
terms, we need to have / improve a) meta data control, b) structure
control, and c) flow control. All three of these areas can be improved
by using XML and Schemas out of the box by putting various validation
at different part of our systems to trap errors as early as possible.
I'll probably write more on this tomorrow, as now I need to get kids
into bed, do the washing up, and do some other life maintenance.
...
> Observations like this incite me to be provocative, sorry about that,
> when I should be cheering them on...
Cheering in the library world is increasingly hard ...
Alex
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
------------------------------------------ http://shelter.nu/blog/ --------
Received on Mon Aug 27 2007 - 06:05:36 EDT