[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
C'mon Mike, beating on MS and Ballmer doesn't let all the other players off the hook. Shall we drag out Bob Sutor and castigate him as a representation of IBM? Shall we drag out Jon Bosak and do the same for Sun? Heck, Jon was more out front with the stuff before Steve, and I was out front before him in 1989 in the Enterprise papers. So blame me. ;-) But we didn't do it for hype. We did it because we needed a way to integrate heterogeneous systems. Hypertext alone won't do the job. <a href="URzed" just ain't enough. REST might be and that is definitely something to consider. Fact is, the web services issues ARE more important than the semantic web at this time. We really desperately need a way to integrate edge systems in enterprise bids NOW. Otherwise, we really do have to surrender to a single operating system dominant world and It Won't Be Linux. Even though the details aren't right, the main ideas are and the web service thing will work even if it isn't based on URIs. So to me, the discussion of URIs and REST is fascinating and absolutely should be a focus of W3C/WSIO/whoever discussions. I am mildly shocked that Tim Bray's skunk works paper isn't getting more press and attention. Otherwise, why bother with multiple vendors or best of breed? If everyone wants web services to go away, fine. Then Microsoft is our only option because they DO own the dominant operating system and de facto, "The Web". len -----Original Message----- From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@x...] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:15 AM Cc: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: WSIO vs. Semantic Web 2/13/2002 9:46:23 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...> wrote: >But you can't just push it back to Ballmer. >That plays right into the hands of the press >and makes the appearance of controversy reality. >It can't be spun as an organization (WSIO) vs >an initiative (Semantic Web). It has to be >web service architecture A vs web service >architecture B. Then it is priority of >investment and resources to one task or >the other (do we spend our time sorting >out the semantic web or web services? >can we do both and still retain our >imprimatur?) I agree that the real issue is "Web Service architecture A vs Web Service Architecture B" not "Web Services vs Semantic Web" or "W3C vs WSIO". The other activities can complement each other, even though they do require many of the same scarce human resources. BUT I agree with Tim that it is ultimately Ballmer's fault that this is a crisis. Nobody was smoking Web Services crack until the .NET initiative lit the pipe and MS started hyping the wonderful feeling it gave :~)
|
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
|