xml-dev - Re: Terminology Shift: Ban Semantic Web

[Bob La Quey <robertl1@home.com>]

http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/199911/msg01239.html

At 08:36 AM 10/11/00 -0500, you wrote:
>I am remembering an email from someone 
>who said they wished they would never 
>see the "S" word in another XML discussion. 

If OASIS would provide a decent way to search the archive
you would be able to find the message ... sigh. I guess for 
$250/head (or whatever) they cannot afford to do what 
eGroups does for free. 

>Semantic always gets us wrapped around the 
>axle of philosphical interpretation of meaning. 
>It is impossible to test except that at the 
>end of the discussion, parties state that they 
>think they agree.  Sort of signatory binding...

Element names have to do something at the end of the day.
It matters not whether you call it semantics or not. And
when the systems become interoperable they do agree. 

Not just "think" they agree. 
 
>I agree with the person who sent the message 
>that the term semantic probably ought to be 
>banned by mutual exhaustion.

Well, building working applications is exhausting.
Should we ban them? 

>What if instead of "semantic web" which 
>sounds more like magic than computer science, 
>vision over substance, polemic over logic, 
>we used the terms "services-based web" so 
>we can get it out of the world of declarative 
>contracting and into the world of predictable, 
>reliable transactions.

The problem is simple. Nobody has articulated a clear
architectural vision of the future of the web. So lacking
that it will just grow willy-nilly along some Darwinian
path. I am not sure this is a bad thing, but it sure ain't
pretty. 

I kept looking a found this ancient collection of questions.
http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/199911/msg01239.html

Finding anything in an archive with no search engine is 
a good way to kill historical memory and a real time waster. 

Why cannot OASIS do something about this?

>It might not sell to Joe Q waiting for the 
>next 'nicks game, but at least the developers 
>would have a clearer goal to meet.

I am not at all convinced that a "services-based web"
(what services?) brings us closer to clarity but it does 
appear that we agree. At present there is no clear goal.

Maybe TimBL has one, or maybe someone else ... maybe it 
is just that it is hard to explain. 

"Before the Web existed, it was very hard to explain what the Web was."
-Tim Berners-Lee

Sadly I don't think that is the problem. 

IMNSHO we do not have that architectural vision yet. 

We have a large group of highly intelligent people lost
in the details and no concept of the forest. 

So it goes,


Bob La Quey