Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: XML/RDF
 11/10/2002 3:19:57 PM, Paul Prescod <paul@p...> wrote: >> I'm sorry if I come across as overly hostile about RDF/ontoloties/etc. >> I just have a bad reaction to scenarios such as the one at the beginning >> of the Scientific American Article that both the SW and >> the Web Services advocates seem to love. > >And yet you're criticizing the Semantic Web and chairing the Web >Services Architecture Group. ;) I try to maintain an attitude of humble skepticism about the complexities of the problems that both face. See, for example, the last paragraph of http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Nov/0055.html <grin> Seriously, and speaking of that post, it's intriguing to me how so many people (independently, AFAIK) latched onto the basic idea of combining XML and HTTP to move serialized objects around and/or do RPC calls. As we probably agree, the basic XML-RPC paradigm is one of those things that "evolves" easily out of the component parts, but is probably an evolutionary dead-end because RPC doesn't scale and HTTP wasn't built for it anyway. Still, for an ultimately doomed idea, it has a lot of reality behind it -- lots of mission-critical stuff behind firewalls and lots of non mission-critical stuff (e.g. weblog updates) using it daily. The semantic web seems much the opposite: an idea that COULD work and MAY work someday (perhaps when they "boil the ocean" and persuade lots of people to take metadata and ontologies seriously), but doesn't seem to have nearly as much success in the wild today. >Fair enough. But don't you think that as a technologist you have the >ability and responsibility to evaluate the technology separate from the >hype? Ability? I hope so. Responsibility? Perhaps, but I long ago adopted a heuristic that I would invest time in evaluating technologies that seemed to be solving real problems that I had or that I saw others having. URLs/HTTP/HTML solved a *lot* of problems for me (like what to do with my time and money!) when I came upon them in 1994 or so. I saw SGML *really work* for real people with hard problems that Word, TeX, etc. choked on when I started work for Arbortext in 1996. A bit later saw XML as the part of SGML that people actually used and that I could actually understand. There's some Semantic Web stuff I find very intriguing, e.g. applying WebOnt to SNOMED, or the Canegie-Mellon stuff on scheduling (http://www.sys-con.com/xml/article.cfm?id=529). Then again, they're applying RDF to well-understood, localized domains. Sortof like SOAP-RPC -- a reasonable solution to a limited domain problems, but my hackles go up go up when people start talking about it as the Next Big Thing. I guess it really *is* the hype that bothers me ... and there's something about hype that just gets under my skin and makes me want to debunk it rather than doing something more productive with my time ... 
|
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
|
|||||||||
