xml-dev - RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?

["Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>]

Title: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?

If you were describing a technology, I could accept that.  I had no problems

with XML Query languages because I had seen that tried.   HTML was

generic coding per GenCode and most of the tags in it were the ones Truly
Donovan did for Charles.   HTTP was the same thing an ISO 9000 tape

header did and ftp managed.  Nothing cutting edge about any of that.

 

But semantic web?  What the heck is that?  A web of meaning?  Well, nice.

When I need a philosophical spider, I'll get a service to send me meaningful

answers to philosophical questions.  The point is behavioral:  tell me what a

semantic web does.  For each of those, we can name a service and that

will lead to a set of requirements for that service.  OTW, it isn't one of

those nifty "dreams unrealized".  It is a sloppy requirement.  No one is

laughing it off.  We are debating bad specs, bad writing, closed processes,

etc.

 

If someone had at the beginning of XML said, "We will create a validation

substitute for DTDs" instead of "we only need well-formed XML", we might

have saved a lot of evil email that went around until the kimono was opened

and a plan was announced.   That is precisely what Simon and others

object to vehemently and accurately.  That is closure at its worst.  When

validation articles using the instance language were announced, Simon

and crew did a first rate job at providing a model for that.  Open worked.

 

Until Tim tells us what a semantic web does, it is a crock and no effort

should be expended on it.  We understand services and there is a lot

to learn before we can orchestrate them to the customer's satisfaction.

Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com [mailto:Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2000 2:51 PM
To: Bullard, Claude L (Len); Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com; Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com; xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?

Bullard, Claude L wrote:

> The Semantic Web is a crock.  You can't explain and
> neither can Berners-Lee. 

Unlike Tim, I do not claim to know whether the semantic web can pan out or not. However, if the W3C is to be a research lab for the web, it has to be free to try some things that are not proven technology.

In 1997, most people I talked to about XML query languages thought the whole idea was a crock. Today, the idea seems to have caught fire. The XQL folks and the XML-QL folks were investigating this area before it was clear to most people that it would be worthwhile.

HTML and HTTP also had plenty of critics in their early days.

Of course, so did many technologies we now laugh off. Some ideas that seem ridiculous really are. But it takes time to sort these things out, and why try to stop other people from putting their efforts into things that I do not yet see the significance of?