[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
C'mon Mike, beating on MS and Ballmer doesn't
let all the other players off the hook. Shall
we drag out Bob Sutor and castigate him as a
representation of IBM? Shall we drag out
Jon Bosak and do the same for Sun? Heck,
Jon was more out front with the stuff before
Steve, and I was out front before him in 1989 in
the Enterprise papers. So blame me. ;-)
But we didn't do it for hype. We did it
because we needed a way to integrate
heterogeneous systems. Hypertext alone
won't do the job. <a href="URzed"
just ain't enough. REST might be and that
is definitely something to consider.
Fact is, the web services issues ARE more
important than the semantic web at this
time. We really desperately need a way
to integrate edge systems in enterprise
bids NOW. Otherwise, we really do have to
surrender to a single operating system
dominant world and It Won't Be Linux.
Even though the details aren't right,
the main ideas are and the web service
thing will work even if it isn't based
on URIs. So to me, the discussion of
URIs and REST is fascinating and absolutely
should be a focus of W3C/WSIO/whoever
discussions. I am mildly shocked that
Tim Bray's skunk works paper isn't
getting more press and attention.
Otherwise, why bother with multiple
vendors or best of breed? If everyone
wants web services to go away, fine.
Then Microsoft is our only option
because they DO own the dominant
operating system and de facto, "The Web".
len
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 9:15 AM
Cc: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
Subject: RE: [xml-dev] WSIO vs. Semantic Web
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 :~)
|
