xml-dev - RE: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)

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

From: Paul Tchistopolskii [mailto:paul@qub.com]

>I think dotcom game is irrelevant to technology
>and the game itself is not worth disussion.

I have to differ with that.  The dot.com game 
just made a lot of people who believed in visions 
much poorer.  We are the ones who have the 
means and the knowledge to vet such visions 
and therefore, it is always, IMO, of value.

Beyond the politics, we need to understand 
the limits of the technology so we can find 
ways to overcome those limits or to work 
safely and responsibly within them.  When 
Berners-Lee says it, people go with it. 
That's fine, but those of us of his age 
or better have lots of voices we respect 
and that is our legacy and our treasure.

I thought the most hopeful statement in 
Ed's article was noting the XML experts 
remained skeptical.  That is a healthy 
attitude.  One of complete disbelief is 
not.  TimBL is one more voice. He has a 
big podium and substantial authority, but 
like any of us, he is limited by his 
experience, background and resources.  
That makes it our responsibility to help 
find the realistic common ground for the 
next phase of systems development of the 
WWW infrastructure.

An ontology is just another document type.
From that light, it fits perfectly into 
the infrastructure.  One only has to decide 
how, when and why to serve it, maintain it, 
and dismiss it.  Like any resource, it has 
a lifecycle and by looking critically at that, 
we can find some valuable insights.

Len 
clbullar@ingr.com
http://www.mp3.com/LenBullard

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