Sorry, Martin, I was not meaning to criticize at all. I hope it didn’t come 
over like that.

My reflections on this come from an interest in how
software and similar communities work; I have spent the last few decades hanging
out in the complex mini-worlds of TeX and of TEI, and its fascinating to see 
the similarities
between them and the CRM. 

...
> Please do understand me right. We do all these services for free. None of 
> this is because we would defend
> jobs or technology.  Everything we do is a big concern, not a slight one;-) . 
> Everything better costs again. We need funding for each migration:-( .
> 
absolutely understood. I was not using proprietary in a  critical sense. my 
concern is that
the future of the CRM is compromised if there are any technology barriers to 
people working
on it, and (for example) talking over the maintenance if FORTH lose interest.,

...
> The process, operations are complex and need control. XML is not a database, 
> it does not have functions. Of course you can put in in XML, and then use an 
> XML database on top to do the operations.
> It does not help you running IsA constraints on classes and properties, and 
> trigger sequences of changes.
> That needs code.

it does. but I wouldn’t distinguish so much between the XML representation of 
the source and the XML representation
of the functions. not the implementing the functions doesnt need code itself, 
of course. 

I am thinking of the way an XML representation of a schema can embed all sorts 
of rules and constraints in the
form of Schematron. in another world, you’ll call that code, I call it part of 
the spec.


>> forgive me, but this looks like a tail wagging a dog :-}
> Well, forgive me also, what is the dog: The application S/W or the data 
> structure ;-) ?
> If the search and update operations are simple, a data structure may be the 
> dog.
> Otherwise....;-)

true :-}

> If anybody is seriously interested, we can send the complete requirements 
> analysis.
> Then we can make together checklists what the benefits are.
can you expand? the requirements analysis for what?

> …..
> If we may go out of this business some day, nobody will be able to continue 
> the
> process as it stands now.
> 
precisely, that’s what interests me. how you get to a setup which any 
reasonably IT-literate person
around the world can replicate, and take over the CRM in the (highly unlikely!) 
event that
a Grexit causes FORTH to go bankrupt.

Sebastian Rahtz      
Chief Data Architect
University of Oxford IT Services
+44 1865 283431






Reply via email to