[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
- To: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com,xml-dev@lists.xml.org
- Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2000 08:23:33 -0500
Standard vocabularies for domains were pretty well
understood by scholastics in the middle ages. That
wasn't AI. It was common sense.
The W3C standardizes common sense. Film at 11.
On the other hand, get two businesses to agree
to an interface to a service (meaning they can
ask for and receive precisely what they asked
for on terms to which they agree), and you have
modern contract-based business. If you tell the
IT staffs they are engineering semantics, they
will laugh, turn, and say, "I'm out of here."
And they will be right to do so.
Len Bullard
Intergraph Public Safety
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Borden [mailto:jborden@mediaone.net]
On the other hand, perhaps the greatest single invention of this
time was
the idea of a semantic network. The apparently simple act of agreeing on a
standard vocabulary or terminology for a particular field of study can then
be seen for its true and great value. The problem with the semantic web
isn't that there is no potential, but rather that it is a really difficult
thing to do well. RDF is at least a start.
|
