[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Why 90 percent of XML standards will fail
- From: Benjamin Franz <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: email@example.com
- Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2001 09:48:08 -0800 (PST)
On Tue, 27 Feb 2001, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> Since the W3C chooses the terms, recomendation or specification, I use
> their terms for their artifacts. They probably have something in mind
> for that interpretation which might make a fine contribution to a
> semantic web in a list of "practical intents and purposes" they test
> to ensure their definition of use.
Do you believe that the adspeak 'previously owned car' is a beneficial
semantic over the common and well known understood 'used car'? Would you
use that term, just because the used car dealership *preferred* the term
Sometimes semantic artifacts are intended to *decrease*, not *increase*
comprehension. This is such a case. The *ONLY* reason for the avoidance of
the word 'standard' here is to allow companies to write non-compliant
implementations without getting beat up for it. "That's only a
_recommendation_, not anything as formal as a *standard*. We comply with
the *standards* themselves (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).".
... with proper design, the features come cheaply. This
approach is arduous, but continues to succeed.