[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Two Perspectives (was Re: URIs are simply names R)
Outstanding post, Steve. Worthy of framing ;-) Your two perspectives very well illustrate the divergence between the web and semantic web that I've sensed for some time (though not as clearly as your post presents them). I think that one of the key ways in which the W3C can support perspective 2 is to accept that the present, low resolution and non-formal "contemporary view" of URI classification does not meet the needs of perspective 2 and consider very hard how balance can be achieved in that crucial area. The rest, I think, will follow from that. Cheers, Patrick On 2002-02-15 21:12, "ext Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@c...> wrote: > "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@a...> writes: > >> It would be helpful to read the relevent documents >> because there is really no point in arguing what is >> "logical" when we are defining our basic terms in a >> different fashion. > > It all depends on which documents you regard as > relevant. In SGML, for example, an "entity" is a very > different thing. And so is a "resource". > > It is very useful and revealing to see the whole > history of our field as a conflict between two > perspectives: > > (1) The perspective of those who provide bandwidth > and processing, and > > (2) the perspective of those who provide and maintain > information. > > From Perspective 2, which is the perspective on which > SGML is based, it is nonsensical to define what > information is (or to think of information in terms of) > what a process produces, or in terms of a > communications protocol. For Perspective 2, > information just sits somewhere, occupying real space. > Its "location" can be addressed in countless ways, in > terms of other information -- other information that > also "just sits there". For Perspective 2, information > really, really exists, it has real value (in that > access to it can improve human productivity), its > maintenance absorbs real human effort, and it does > absolutely nothing. > > From Perspective 1, which is the perspective on which > the Web and all other communications and computing > systems are based, it is nonsensical to think of > information in any terms than other "information in > motion", either being copied from one place to another, > or being transformed in various ways. Perspective 1 > has little reverence for the value of the information > itself, or for the effort involved in maintaining it. > Perspective 1 frequently (and, to my way of thinking, > ignorantly and self-defeatingly) tramples on, > diminishes, and destroys the value of information in > many ways. But the Perspective 1 guys have nearly all > of the money and virtually all of the power. This is > because Perspective 1 is in a much stronger position to > set up the toll booths and collect tolls. > > Perspective 1 is so unconcerned with the value of > information that it doesn't bother to distinguish > between the Eiffel Tower and addressable information > that serves as a surrogate for the Eiffel Tower; > they're both just a "resource". Perspective 1 is so > blithely unconcerned with the problem of information > management that there doesn't even have to be anything > at the addresses that are used to uniquely identify > individual XML Namespaces. > > The predominance of Perspective 1 is the reason why the > Web is such an appallingly bad place to *manage* > information, even while it's a great place to *publish* > it. > > Of course, the two perspectives need each other > desperately. It has been my hope that the XML > phenomenon would be a bridge-builder between them. The > jury's still out on that. For the last few years, > things haven't been looking very promising. > > Things began badly for Perspective 2, when the > Perspective 1 people overlooked the primary benefit of > SGML, and decided to make it unnecessary to provide a > model for XML information. Except for the enablement > of some tricky hacks that were made possible by this > end-run -- hacks whose goals could have been > accomplished by other, less destructive means -- this > was a fruitless thing to have done. It has had the > unfortunate side-effect of keeping millions of people > from discovering the vital importance of Perspective 2. > XML Namespaces was another major blow to Perspective 2: > names were seen as a solution to a communications > problem, rather than as handles for specific semantics. > (The two sides have consistently talked right past each > other on XML Namespaces; the spectacle would be comical > if it weren't so incredibly expensive for everyone.) > > I see the confusing welter of confused, non-modular XML > specifications as a hopeful sign. The Babel effect is > slowing the pendulum down, and it may soon reverse its > course, and move toward Perspective 2. I hope it does. > If enhancing human productivity is truly the shared > goal, balance must someday prevail. At the moment, > most people are on one side or the other, but few > realize that there is even a dialectic tension here, > much less what the lack of balance between the two > perspectives is costing everyone on this planet. When > we all appreciate the value of the other side's > perspective, things will improve a lot. > > It looks to me as though the W3C, having sinned > grievously against Perspective 2, is now starting to > move toward it. I nourish the hope that this is the > real meaning of the "Semantic Web" initiative. If so, > it's going to be a tough and divisive path for the W3C > to follow, and I wish them well. I find many of their > efforts to describe the goals of the Semantic Web as > Delphic as others do. It would be a lot clearer if > they could be seen to embrace Perspective 2, but it may > not be possible to do that, in view of the overwhelming > quantity of their Perspective 1 baggage. > > OASIS has long been much more sensitive to Perspective > 2 than the W3C has. I applaud them for their longtime > efforts to achieve a better balance. > > But I'm willing to support anybody who appreciates the > importance and necessity of supporting Perspective 2. > Perspective 2 is the underdog, and *balance* is what is > needed. > > I'm an ISO guy, myself. ISO, the source of SGML, is a > Perspective 2 stronghold. It's a source of ideas that > Perspective 1 people have been extremely unwilling to > support, like HyTime, architectural forms, and groves, > and things that tend to make Perspective 1 people > pretty nervous, like Topic Maps. > > What will .NET turn out to be? I'm no insider, but I'm > willing to bet that Microsoft is preparing to be where > the pendulum is going to be -- which is a lot closer to > Perspective 2 than it is now. > > -- Steve > > Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant > srn@c... > > voice: +1 972 359 8160 > fax: +1 972 359 0270 > > 1527 Northaven Drive > Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA > > -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@n...
|
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
|