I wrote: “DTDs? No, use XML Schemas, I’d say. and Phil replies:
I think using XML Schema instead of DTDs is probably the right choice. I’ll update the paper. In particular the XML Schema language gives you the power of a context free grammar (rather than a context free grammar) with little increase in complexity. They also probably have a brighter future. The main point is, however: document what you create and keep it up to date.
Nice. Good points too. I actually like(d) DTDs, but hey I also liked WordPerfect 4.1 and my old 286-machine once. Clearly, it is time to say goodbye to DTD and embrace XML Schema, if not for else just for the fact that we only then can truly say we “speak” XML all the way.
I had also written: WSIL? Hmmm. Maybe, but we (government) need to engage in UDDI too. On this, Phil writes:
I think UDDI is premature except inside the orgranization, so I stick by my recommendation to use WSIL. WSIL can be easily integrated with UDDI later when (if?) it takes off.
I (still) have to check up on WSIL. I am no particular UDDI-fan at all, and my point was more that we (government) must keep an eye to this, so we don’t get left behind anything important.
Lastly, on my raising issue with explaining all of this in more “layman’s” terms, Phil says “Boy, isn’t that the truth!” and speculates in revising his paper once more. Well, please keep the current version available, because … cool urls don’t change 😉 But don’t let that hold you back from writing more.
I hope to sometime soon be able to provide some English translations of the writings we’re doing in my office. We’ll be launching an international forum on e-gov architecture soon. Stay tuned.