[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com,xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 15:34:55 -0500
Title: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?
Blow
off the syntactic web or enumerate the syntaxes. There are many.
Good luck.
If by
this you mean, solidify the XML application vocabularies, go for
it.
The
Semantic Web is a crock. You can't explain and neither can
Berners-Lee. It
is the
kind of requirement that leads to the noisy specs everyone is protesting.
If a
requirement can't be described in prose most of us can agree to, it is a
bogus requirement
and
should be banned from future discussion.
Web
services can be precisely enumerated such that even machines can figure
out
which service is which. As to whether what they find and provide is what
was
asked for, humans determine that nicely when they orchestrate
services.
Actually, some architectures are in place, are precisely described and
are
being
implemented. .net is one. Because of that, we can build with it, for
it,
and
interoperate with it. No W3C required other than to not put cruft into
the
base specifications such as XML syntax.
Semantic web my behind. I just want to order a pizza, not have
mozarella
explained to me.
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam
sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
1. Solidifying the existing technologies in the Syntactic Web
- filling in the gaps, making things work more smoothly.
2. Playing around with new technologies that may or may not
work out. Go ahead and define the Semantic Web more fully, creating the
interfaces, serialization formats, query protocols, etc., and see if it
catches fire. If not, try something else. Move into XML Protocol. Try whatever
seems promising. Don't worry if several attempts at defining new things don't
work out, as long as you have a few interesting ideas that pan out every
year.
| 