Anne,
On 11.02.2007, at 00:26, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
Google certainly wins for human discovery, but what about
relationships, dependancy tracking, impact analysis, lifecycle
management, change control, and other governance capabilities?
there is no reason that prevents querying any kind of repository via
forms (e.g. Open Search[1]). All that is needed is the search
parameters being shared knowledge between client and server. This is
far less shared knowledge than one would need for an XQuery (or SQL
for that matter) based approach. In fact, it is the absolute minimum
of shared knowledge required - and thus leads to the maximum amount
of loose coupling you can get.
Coupling clients and servers through queries is usually one of the
most painful kinds of coupling - as anyone who has been assigned to
refactor relational databases for sure knows down to the bones. I
even know a case, where the amount of client-side SQL to adjust was
simply prohibitive regarding the estimated man power needed.
No, do not expose the data model across to remote systems - bad idea :-)
Jan
[1] http://www.opensearch.org
Anne
On 2/10/07, Steve Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> XQuery is what gives the repository a powerful search capability.
REST is what enables users to more readily exploit the search
capability. I think Systinet did a pretty good job putting love
into its UI. Its competitors have a long way to go. (Systinet still
has a lot of stuff to do to enhance its product, and it really
needs to fix its performance problems, but its just way beyond with
the other folks have done.)
>
Anne, I'm not convinced that XQuery is a very effectively search tool
for a repository except for technical navigation. Its reliant on
knowledge of the XML structure and is based on traversal, thus loose
associations tend to be lost.
Registry for runtime and technical discovery, Google for humand
discovery makes more sense to me.
> Anne
>
> ps. And no -- I have no personal stake in HP or Systinet. I've
just completed a pretty thorough analysis of the leading products,
and I was astonished by the differences.
>
>
> On 2/10/07, Paul Downey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On 9 Feb 2007, at 12:32, Anne Thomas Manes wrote:
> >
> > > Yes -- open content model, automatic detection of relationships,
> > > hyperlinks, REST architecture, excellent search. This is what
> > > differentiates Systinet's repository from the other players. It
> > > doesn't have a built-in wiki capability, although it does have a
> > > free-form description field for all artifacts. And the content
> > > model is extensible, so you could add/extend the description or
> > > comments field to allow folks to add more information.
> >
> > I periodically get to attend meetings where someone has a vision
> > which involves a single registry/repository to rule them all.
> > There follows a list of all the great metadata which this
> > single truth will "own".
> >
> > Usually a can't hear what they're saying due to the sound
> > of "Darth Vader's Theme" trumpeting in my lugholes.
> > Empire building.. Empire building ..
> >
> > Beyond the obvious political motivations for a central registry,
> > I just don't like the outcome. Flickr, Google, Amazon, etc all
put more
> > love into their developer web pages. It's no coincidence they're
> > adopted more widely by developers that services shoved into
> > a UDDI at the edge of the known universe.
> >
> > Web sites rock. Spreadsheets suck.
> >
> > Paul
> > --
> > http://blog.whatfettle.com
> >
> >
>
>
