Lists Home |
Date Index |
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Paul Tchistopolskii <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com
- Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 10:32:00 -0600
From: Paul Tchistopolskii [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
>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
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.
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h