|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
Isn't an architectural form a means to establish a reference group that uses a set of overlapping but distinct vocabularies? Let's not go there too far, but it is something to keep me awake nights. Joshua says he has been thinking about this lately, but for me, it is my oldest nightmare about the use of worldwide hypermedia systems, the misshapen face of the machine enabled to govern. urrrrk... Anywho...don't AFs use addresses, hyperlinks and metadata? I can't seem to escape the attractor that some of what we need is buried in the old standards. If archforms were tied to notations as Steve says they orignally were, didn't use PIs, and did use URIs, would we get essentially what Cowan is proposing for AFNGs? len -----Original Message----- From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@p...] "Ontological communities are a fact of life and in fact, one way to deduce that some person or thing is a member of a reference group is to check the vocabulary usage." C. L. Bullard Big companies cannot standardize that out of existence. It is a fact of the universe, of humanity. RPC can make a thin layer of standardization which then gives rise to the same ontological mess at the next level (okay, I got your business document through an RPC call. Now what?). I assert without evidence that addresses, hyperlinks and metadata are part of the solution...that they can be a unifying force. As long as the RPC world has no equivalent then it has no such unifying force. I suspect that it will eventually fall back on the Semantic Web to clean it up.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||

Cart








