[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design

• To: "'DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO)'" <bob.ducharme@l...>, "'Simon St.Laurent'" <simonstl@s...>, xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 11:26:32 -0600

And there is no moral difference between a group of developers 
on a list forming their own keiretsu to create a product and a 
proprietary product sans rules for licensing.  Again, the 
computer science is always coupled to the social behavior and 
they swap places in different levels.  Those arguments go 
nowhere.  Spy Vs Spy.  

The only difference between a chaotic and a stable system 
is the relative strengths of the negative and positive 
feedback parameters.  The social system has the advantage 
or disadvantage of opportunistic selectors based on 
awareness of the parameters. Them that has, gets.

len

From: DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) [mailto:bob.ducharme@l...]

>I think the hub - and likely multiple hubs - has to be allowed to
>evolve, not derived by committee and imposed.  

Well, that gets back to the motive behind my original question: where does a
hub architecture come from, if not from a group of people representing
various interests gathering together to determine their common interest--a
committee? To reiterate something from my last post, I realize that no
committee can come up with something that works for absolutely everyone.
But, when you have something evolving on its own, completely organically, it
evolves into tag soup, and commercial enterprises don't want to use tag
soup. They're nervous enough about the differences between RSS .9, 1.0, 2.0,
and Atom. 

• Prev by Date: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by Date: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Previous by thread: Re: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Next by thread: RE: XLink and mixed vocabulary design
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread