OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

 


 

   RE: Realistic proposals to the W3C?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
  • To: Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com, Jonathan.Robie@SoftwareAG-USA.com,Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2000 16:01:48 -0500

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?





 

News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS