OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] WSIO vs. Semantic Web

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Isn't an architectural form a means to 
establish a reference group that uses a 
set of overlapping but distinct vocabularies?
Let's not go there too far, but it is 
something to keep me awake nights.  Joshua 
says he has been thinking about this lately, 
but for me, it is my oldest nightmare about 
the use of worldwide hypermedia systems, 
the misshapen face of the machine enabled 
to govern.  urrrrk...

Anywho...don't AFs use addresses, hyperlinks and 

I can't seem to escape the attractor  
that some of what we need is buried in 
the old standards.  If archforms were 
tied to notations as Steve says they 
orignally were, didn't use PIs, and 
did use URIs, would we get essentially 
what Cowan is proposing for AFNGs?


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Prescod [mailto:paul@prescod.net]

"Ontological communities are a fact of life and 
in fact, one way to deduce that some person or 
thing is a member of a reference group is to 
check the vocabulary usage."

C. L. Bullard

Big companies cannot standardize that out of existence. It is a fact of
the universe, of humanity. RPC can make a thin layer of standardization
which then gives rise to the same ontological mess at the next level
(okay, I got your business document through an RPC call. Now what?). I
assert without evidence that addresses, hyperlinks and metadata are part
of the solution...that they can be a unifying force. As long as the RPC
world has no equivalent then it has no such unifying force. I suspect
that it will eventually fall back on the Semantic Web to clean it up.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS