[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
2/13/2002 9:46:23 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>
wrote:
>But you can't just push it back to Ballmer.
>That plays right into the hands of the press
>and makes the appearance of controversy reality.
>It can't be spun as an organization (WSIO) vs
>an initiative (Semantic Web). It has to be
>web service architecture A vs web service
>architecture B. Then it is priority of
>investment and resources to one task or
>the other (do we spend our time sorting
>out the semantic web or web services?
>can we do both and still retain our
>imprimatur?)
I agree that the real issue is "Web Service architecture A vs Web
Service Architecture B" not "Web Services vs Semantic Web" or "W3C
vs WSIO". The other activities can complement each other, even
though they do require many of the same scarce human resources.
BUT I agree with Tim that it is ultimately Ballmer's fault that
this is a crisis. Nobody was smoking Web Services crack until the
.NET initiative lit the pipe and MS started hyping the wonderful
feeling it gave :~) In a rational world (ha ha ha hee hee hee) we
would have spent some time sorting out the implications of HTTP +
XML + (pick your favorite metadata scheme) + (pick your favorite
discovery mechanism) BEFORE promising that it would be bigger than
God. Now the reality that there are all sorts of different ways to
do this, some of which are probably very valuable, most of which
are pure dope smoke, and none of us has a very clear idea of which
is which.
Nevertheless, the way forward that the industry seems to have
chosen is about as rational as it is going to get: WS-I can think
about finding whatever reality there really is in the Web Services
hype while the W3C thinks about how we are going to refactor all
this in another 5 years.
|
