[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: XML.COM: How I Learned to Love daBomb
- From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <email@example.com>
- To: Michael Brennan <Michael_Brennan@allegis.com>,xml-dev <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001 08:26:22 -0500
I think Ed is in the real world. The article is
a symptom of the growing frustration and fatigue
with all of the "new and different" that is promoted
before the last thing gets firmly established.
The specs keep churning based on the minimal
victories that don't complete the job, then
the tools churn. Those of us who as I said are
Thralls and have to wait until post-beta to
begin our own work are forever waiting.
Some XML ambitions exceed what the SGMLers thought
were reasonable applications of markup. Web
Services are at the lunatic fringe of what we described
for markup in the eighties and early nineties,
so nothing there is surprising or particularly
new other than they are now mainstream. The
problem issues of widely distributed
cooperative systems is coordination, the reason
we looked into CASE tools, simulation and Hytime for synchronization
and scheduling concepts for workflow in hypermedia.
There are problems object-concepts don't solve. It
may be possible that web services with AI components
can be part of that solution, at least where the noise
is mammal noise.
So the notion that XML isn't being developed intelligently
is a little harsh, but I understand. To appeal to the
past, particularly the way the web has come about, is
not that appealing. Head long rush, personalities,
minimal victories, all of this is too much the thinking
of one-off systems. For all the critique of ISO, those
five year cycles served to stabilize all of the dense
and insanely multi-dimensional processes that have to
converge to create safe interoperable systems. Otherwise, we
will have as predicted, the occasional catastrophe
and we have only luck to prevent it being in very
sensitive junctions. Too many of the early web
developers overlooked the problems of cultural and
individual predilections that have lead to so many
The problem is as it has always been, to compete and
comply. Standards are valuable, but they should be
based on experience with real systems, not experimentation.
That is why I speak of balance of powers among the
organizations that require, propose and govern.
XML is just SGML. We know how this works and we
know where the limits are. I don't have as many
problems with that (I can write Schemas, I can use
namespaces, and I know what they are good for), but
I worry everyday about complexity merging with
the unknown unknowns. I only fume when I see the
simplistic merge with the all too well known and that
creates the kinds of events we are seeing in the use
and misuse of the Internet. The chickens do come
home to roost.
The good news if you want to consider it that: the
tool betas look more solid and as the choices
are made and the developers move on to the next
stage of making the car love opera, we will finally
get the best seats. One can only hope they are
next to someone who doesn't smell funny. There
Ekam sat.h, Vipraah bahudhaa vadanti.
Daamyata. Datta. Dayadhvam.h
From: Michael Brennan [mailto:Michael_Brennan@allegis.com]
I've really grown weary of these sorts of articles. Web services is
over-hyped and over-marketed, therefore it is just a vacuous passing fad.
Interesting logic. Toothpaste is over-hyped and over-marketed, too. Does
that mean that toothpaste is just a passing fad?
I have to laugh at someone who dismisses web services as a meaningless
passing fad, then goes on to share his enthusiasm for the Semantic Web. All
I can think is it must be nice to not have to live in the real world.