> As in "too complex for work" or "too complex for work with
multidimensional data"?
> The first is "too loose to decide" and the second requires OLAP
expertise.
            Somewhat agreed,  although I think there is a third
condition which is the one  applying to me of 
            "too complex to use as springboard to the technology" , that
is I felt from dealing with it that I had to back out and start from
OLAP, this is like starting from tex (or some other layout technology)
to deal with xsl-fo, may be a good idea but shouldn't be necessary in my
opinion. I realize this is arguable, I can sit here and argue it to
myself, nonetheless I hate it when a domain-specific application of xml
is so insular that I cannot come to a clear understanding of the domain
from reading about the spec.
 
 >  OLAP is one of those neat technologies that doesn't get much
attention in the XML 
> world.  I've always considered XML for Analysis a ground breaking and
much 
> ignored innovation.  Locally, I find when I inquire about it that the
SQL practicioners 
> want to ignore OLAP as "too hard and we don't really need it".
            I do consider OLAP from what I've learned of it in my spare
time, a neat technology, I also can't help thinking that for my SQL
practice it is "too hard and I can do without it" if such technical
schizophrenia is acceptable,  I'm pretty sure my co-workers would be
divided into the "too hard and we don't really need it" and the "shut up
Bryan" camps. As for the groundbreakingness of XML for Analysis I have
some feeling for the specification, complicated by its near
unreadability(for one of my average abilities, there are no doubt people
out there for whom it is a transparent spec) and my need to go
cross-referencing all the time and thinking "hell I will never use
this". For me when I think  of groundbreakingness in XML I tend to think
of stuff like UBL , things that I feel I will one day come to use and
applaud. Does this seem wrongheaded?
 
 > So one might 
> approach this first by enumerating the cases for which OLAP is the
simpler 
> approach and then the subset of these for which XML For Analysis is the

> simplest approach.
I think that would be cool, and a useful way of evaluating many of the
standards that come out. In some way this is what some threads on this
list attempts to do for various specifications, it would be nice if
these comparisons were on some site together 
- could call it www.xmlcomparisons.org <http://www.xmlcomparisons.org/> 

Maybe some Microsoft people on this list have specific insights on the
matter and would like to do concise evaluations?