Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
mc@x... (Mike Champion) writes: >http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/10/roles_clean.htm That looks like an incredibly complicated game of catch, where everyone is throwing stuff back and forth and sliding into home plate simultaneously. >In my opinion, which seems to be shared by many people on the WSA WG, >FWIW, The Web As We Know It is "Scenario 0" in David's framework: The >semantics of the "service" are negotiated totally out of band or >inmplicitly understood by a human reading the page, and the "web >service description" consists solely of the URI. > >The Semantic Web could be Scenario N in his framework, where the >semantic descriptions are machine processable and somehow tie into the >syntactic description of the web page or service invocation in a way >that a machine could infer. > >Whether or not David's framework can be made to work in a formal >architecture, it represents the SPIRIT of what I think is needed -- >integrating the Web, Web services, and the Semantic Web viewpoints as >special cases of one another rather than as alternate "paradigms" that >must be accepted or rejected as dogma. You can believe that if it's what it takes to keep working on it, but it looks like the W3C is building a stack to the sky. That stack isn't the chaotic Tower of Babel that Mark Pesce and others feared XML would create, but an ever-growing semantic stack that tries too hard to create order where tolerance for chaos might be a wiser strategy. It's an excellent illustration of what can happen when you insist on controlling meaning, I guess. That basic dogma seems to be common across the SW, WS, and even WXS. -- Simon St.Laurent Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets Errors, errors, all fall down! http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org
|
