[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?)
The reliability issue is key. We did a round on that term as a logistics consideration awhile back. However, computing a reliability numbers (eg, Mean Time Between Failure, Mean Time To Repairs) and quality assurance numbers (Mean Time To Response), we will have multiple articles to factor in. o The URI, conflating name and location, is problematic. How can it denote both a replicable resource and a bound resource? That is why FPIs and System IDs are separated. o The schema. This has a better chance. Even if it is evolving, when a central authority owns a schema and has good change control procedures, the quality of it can be controlled. If it is dynamic in real time, all bets are off other than predictive quality. o The component. This has as good a chance as testing provides. The dllHell issue is still with us and though the new operating systems are offering better options, it comes down to site tuning. Binding it to an authoritative schema improves our ability to wire it into the process. A bad process will still be a bad process. RDF and predicate systems might be one more tool. They require yet another skill and toolset and with all of the logistics considerations, might have a hard time finding a niche among stored database procedures, OLAP, and so on. However, as a technology that has not yet emerged with sufficient density to characterize as a success, we have to take a wait and see stance. As a basis for a vision of the future web, the semantic web seems ill-timed and as yet, unrealizable for most sites. A services-based web is a doable, here now, must make sure all the pieces work coherently kind of vision. We can explain it, we can implement it, and IMO, we can field it reliably. If we are sharp negotiators and professional designers, we will get coherence provided the next round of standards and specs don't drive us into the weeds. If we are to offer realistic proposals, we need a realistic request for proposals. That's good business. If the previous eight years of web emergence can be characterized, one might say good splat but bad business. That phase is over and we must ensure the standards, specifications, and recommendations have a sound foundation in the business applications. For this, I say services, not semantics. Len http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti. Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h -----Original Message----- From: Gavin Thomas Nicol [mailto:gtn@e...] Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2000 9:41 AM To: xml-dev@l... Subject: RE: Services-based automation (WAS RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?) > Well, DUH! If a semantic web means is a namespace URI points > to a schema somewhere, I am completely underwhelmed. More importantly, this also doesn't work reliably for a number of reasons... chief amongst them being that URL's (and URI's in general) are somewhat fragile.
|
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
|