[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:16:51 -0500
Well, DUH! If a semantic web means is a namespace URI points
to a schema somewhere, I am completely underwhelmed. That is
and only is precisely what FPIs and SYSTEM IDs were designed
for and have been doing for a long long time. And really,
there isn't an interoperable relational system anywhere that
doesn't have to publish and negotiate a schema, even for
conversion, this is the first order of business. So if the
semantic web is anything, it is just a renaming of something
we all do every day, and really, bogus. It is just another
W3C brain fart designed to make some think there is a plan
or some advancement which is in reality, the W3C absconding
with public IP. Services at the very least describe exactly
what must be done. The W3C can sit back and relax if that is
what they think the future is, because, that future is already here.
We know how to publish schemas.
The issue is clarity. People are noticing that W3C processes
begin with weak and underdescribed requirements that may or
may not have stronger unspoken assumptions. The namespace
issue is a good example in which for a year we were told
one thing in private and then another decision emerged. During
the XML design phase, we were told we would use well-formed XML,
only to find out later, the intent was to replace DTDs. At
every stage, the closed and proprietary nature of the W3C process
hinders acceptance and understanding of its objectives.
Len
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
Services are bogus unless they operate on an agreed terminology. Just
because we haven't gotten semantics down pat doesn't diminish its
importance. On the other hand we learn to associate a brand name to an
expected behavior or quality of service. So we need both a terminology or
common vocabulary to describe things, and a way to assign quality of
service. Semantics is necessary to solve the first half of this equation,
but is not sufficient to solve the whole equation. That also doesn't
diminish its importance.
|