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

RE: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)

• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>, xml-dev@l...
• Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:16:51 -0500

Well, DUH! If a semantic web means is a namespace URI points 
to a schema somewhere, I am completely underwhelmed.  That is 
and only is precisely what FPIs and SYSTEM IDs were designed 
for and have been doing for a long long time.  And really, 
there isn't an interoperable relational system anywhere that 
doesn't have to publish and negotiate a schema, even for 
conversion, this is the first order of business.  So if the 
semantic web is anything, it is just a renaming of something 
we all do every day, and really, bogus.  It is just another 
W3C brain fart designed to make some think there is a plan 
or some advancement which is in reality, the W3C absconding 
with public IP.   Services at the very least describe exactly 
what must be done.  The W3C can sit back and relax if that is 
what they think the future is, because, that future is already here. 
We know how to publish schemas.

The issue is clarity.  People are noticing that W3C processes 
begin with weak and underdescribed requirements that may or 
may not have stronger unspoken assumptions.  The namespace 
issue is a good example in which for a year we were told 
one thing in private and then another decision emerged.  During 
the XML design phase, we were told we would use well-formed XML, 
only to find out later, the intent was to replace DTDs.  At 
every stage, the closed and proprietary nature of the W3C process 
hinders acceptance and understanding of its objectives. 

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h


-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@m...]

Services are bogus unless they operate on an agreed terminology. Just
because we haven't gotten semantics down pat doesn't diminish its
importance. On the other hand  we learn to associate a brand name to an
expected behavior or quality of service. So we need both a terminology or
common vocabulary to describe things, and a way to assign quality of
service. Semantics is necessary to solve the first half of this equation,
but is not sufficient to solve the whole equation. That also doesn't
diminish its importance.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)
    • From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@m...>
  • RE: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)
    • From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@e...>

• Prev by Date: RE: Will XML change the character of W3C?
• Next by Date: Re: XML Schemas: Best Practices
• Previous by thread: [Zvon announcement] DOM1 reference
• Next by thread: RE: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread