[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Will XML change the character of W3C?
And that means this thread is clearly signal, and not noise or degradation. I can't sell technology; I can sell services. I can't go to a dispatch center and sell them semantics; I can sell a means to evaluate the context of a call for service or a means for a detective to determine if a pattern of crime activity requires a given remediation. If the developer community cannot be privvy to the reason, political or technical, for a specification feature then they find their own because we do business in a domain of requirements for services which we meet, prove, or are not paid. This we do or else we abandon responsibility to protect out customers. If the decision is purely political and one does not endorse that polity, one must explore options and this is the forum in which to do that, the one in which if the patience and deliberation are practiced, some measure of understanding is found. So far, the process is working. It appears that the term "semantic web" offers little clarity, but that an RDF service has the potential to improve resource discovery processes. That is a win. How big a win, I can't say but now we know what to look for, what to test, how to proceed. We can do this in open discussion without the need for leaders or followers to shout down the process because they are tired of hitting the delete key or because the outcome is not satisfying their polity. If the universe is designing more capable idiots, it is at least improving the service. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h From: Ann Navarro [mailto:ann@w...] At 08:44 AM 10/19/00 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote: >We can't do it *all* on open lists. All that people >such as Simon St Laurent have asked for is the >technical reasoning behind decisions. Except that this ignores (or forgets) that all decisions aren't necessarily based on the best technical reasoning. It may have been politics, stonewalling, or finally caving in to some sort of consensus with a minority opinion. Rare are issues that are unanimous. Would those who want reasons behind decisions accept "the best solution the group could come to consensus on"? I can only see follow-up as to what the other proposals were and why or why not something was/wasn't accepted, and that's where you get into "Well, Foo, Inc's rep refused this", etc.
|
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
|