Hi Dave, 

> This is just echoing what was supposed to happen with AI 
> systems in the '80's. Pick the brains of the SMEs and dump 
> it into Expert Systems. It didn't work then. Why should 
> it be any different now?

I'm not talking about creating Expert Systems. In fact, I'm not talking
about "application design" at all. I'm talking about "data design."

I'm talking about picking the brains of the people who truly understand
the *data* and the *data relationships*, and capturing their knowledge
in a Data Specification. Then, from that Data Specification an XML
Schema is implemented by an XML Schema designer. 

My question is about the connection between a Data Specification and
the derived XML Schema: should there be a 1:1 correspondence? If not,
how much divergence is acceptable? 

For example, if an expert on Books says that the data which identifies
a book is its ISBN value, is it acceptable for an XML Schema designer
to instead use a GUID? If a Book expert says that the printer/producer
of a book is called its "Publisher," is it acceptable for an XML Schema
designer to instead call it "Pub"?  And so forth. 


Hi Tommie,

> Many organizations have found that an iterative
> process, in which technology experts consult with SMEs and
> revise the specification, and the design, many times during
> development.

Good points. I did not mean to imply that the development of a Data
Specification is a one-time thing. As you point out, a Data
Specification may be revised iteratively as deeper insights are
obtained.

Nonetheless, my question remains: what is the connection between a Data
Specification and a derived XML Schema design? 


/Roger