[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
Title: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C? If you
were describing a technology, I could accept that. I had no problems
with
XML Query languages because I had seen that tried. HTML was
generic coding per GenCode and most of the tags in it were the ones Truly
Donovan did for Charles. HTTP was the same thing an ISO 9000 tape header
did and ftp managed. Nothing cutting edge about any of
that.
But
semantic web? What the heck is that? A web of meaning? Well,
nice.
When I
need a philosophical spider, I'll get a service to send me meaningful
answers to philosophical questions. The point is behavioral:
tell me what a
semantic web does. For each of those, we can name a service and
that
will
lead to a set of requirements for that service. OTW, it isn't one of
those
nifty "dreams unrealized". It is a sloppy requirement. No one is
laughing it off. We are debating bad specs, bad writing, closed
processes,
etc.
If
someone had at the beginning of XML said, "We will create a validation
substitute for DTDs" instead of "we only need well-formed XML", we might
have
saved a lot of evil email that went around until the kimono was opened
and a
plan was announced. That is precisely what Simon and others
object
to vehemently and accurately. That is closure at its worst. When
validation articles using the instance language were announced, Simon
and
crew did a first rate job at providing a model for that. Open
worked.
Until
Tim tells us what a semantic web does, it is a crock and no effort
should
be expended on it. We understand services and there is a lot
to
learn before we can orchestrate them to the customer's
satisfaction.
Len
|
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
|