[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Like most dyadic decompositions of our field, this one is simple, elegant
and highly dubious. I am particularly troubled by the non-sequiter that
those with
an information-in-motion perspective have "little reverence for the
value of the information".
I'm a fully paid up information-in-motion, everything flows, kinda guy.
Yet, I am deeply concerned about the value and longevity of information.
I'm also far from being alone.
Here is another dyadic decomposition for you:-
There are two types of markup technologist in the world. Those
who think there are two forms of markup technologist, and
those who don't.
:-)
Sean
>On 2002-02-15 21:12, "ext Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com> wrote:
> > It all depends on which documents you regard as
> > relevant. In SGML, for example, an "entity" is a very
> > different thing. And so is a "resource".
> >
> > It is very useful and revealing to see the whole
> > history of our field as a conflict between two
> > perspectives:
> >
> > (1) The perspective of those who provide bandwidth
> > and processing, and
> >
> > (2) the perspective of those who provide and maintain
> > information.
> >
> > From Perspective 2, which is the perspective on which
> > SGML is based, it is nonsensical to define what
> > information is (or to think of information in terms of)
> > what a process produces, or in terms of a
> > communications protocol. For Perspective 2,
> > information just sits somewhere, occupying real space.
> > Its "location" can be addressed in countless ways, in
> > terms of other information -- other information that
> > also "just sits there". For Perspective 2, information
> > really, really exists, it has real value (in that
> > access to it can improve human productivity), its
> > maintenance absorbs real human effort, and it does
> > absolutely nothing.
> >
> > From Perspective 1, which is the perspective on which
> > the Web and all other communications and computing
> > systems are based, it is nonsensical to think of
> > information in any terms than other "information in
> > motion", either being copied from one place to another,
> > or being transformed in various ways. Perspective 1
> > has little reverence for the value of the information
> > itself, or for the effort involved in maintaining it.
> > Perspective 1 frequently (and, to my way of thinking,
> > ignorantly and self-defeatingly) tramples on,
> > diminishes, and destroys the value of information in
> > many ways. But the Perspective 1 guys have nearly all
> > of the money and virtually all of the power. This is
> > because Perspective 1 is in a much stronger position to
> > set up the toll booths and collect tolls.
> >
> > Perspective 1 is so unconcerned with the value of
> > information that it doesn't bother to distinguish
> > between the Eiffel Tower and addressable information
> > that serves as a surrogate for the Eiffel Tower;
> > they're both just a "resource". Perspective 1 is so
> > blithely unconcerned with the problem of information
> > management that there doesn't even have to be anything
> > at the addresses that are used to uniquely identify
> > individual XML Namespaces.
> >
> > The predominance of Perspective 1 is the reason why the
> > Web is such an appallingly bad place to *manage*
> > information, even while it's a great place to *publish*
> > it.
> >
> > Of course, the two perspectives need each other
> > desperately. It has been my hope that the XML
> > phenomenon would be a bridge-builder between them. The
> > jury's still out on that. For the last few years,
> > things haven't been looking very promising.
> >
> > Things began badly for Perspective 2, when the
> > Perspective 1 people overlooked the primary benefit of
> > SGML, and decided to make it unnecessary to provide a
> > model for XML information. Except for the enablement
> > of some tricky hacks that were made possible by this
> > end-run -- hacks whose goals could have been
> > accomplished by other, less destructive means -- this
> > was a fruitless thing to have done. It has had the
> > unfortunate side-effect of keeping millions of people
> > from discovering the vital importance of Perspective 2.
> > XML Namespaces was another major blow to Perspective 2:
> > names were seen as a solution to a communications
> > problem, rather than as handles for specific semantics.
> > (The two sides have consistently talked right past each
> > other on XML Namespaces; the spectacle would be comical
> > if it weren't so incredibly expensive for everyone.)
> >
> > I see the confusing welter of confused, non-modular XML
> > specifications as a hopeful sign. The Babel effect is
> > slowing the pendulum down, and it may soon reverse its
> > course, and move toward Perspective 2. I hope it does.
> > If enhancing human productivity is truly the shared
> > goal, balance must someday prevail. At the moment,
> > most people are on one side or the other, but few
> > realize that there is even a dialectic tension here,
> > much less what the lack of balance between the two
> > perspectives is costing everyone on this planet. When
> > we all appreciate the value of the other side's
> > perspective, things will improve a lot.
> >
> > It looks to me as though the W3C, having sinned
> > grievously against Perspective 2, is now starting to
> > move toward it. I nourish the hope that this is the
> > real meaning of the "Semantic Web" initiative. If so,
> > it's going to be a tough and divisive path for the W3C
> > to follow, and I wish them well. I find many of their
> > efforts to describe the goals of the Semantic Web as
> > Delphic as others do. It would be a lot clearer if
> > they could be seen to embrace Perspective 2, but it may
> > not be possible to do that, in view of the overwhelming
> > quantity of their Perspective 1 baggage.
> >
> > OASIS has long been much more sensitive to Perspective
> > 2 than the W3C has. I applaud them for their longtime
> > efforts to achieve a better balance.
> >
> > But I'm willing to support anybody who appreciates the
> > importance and necessity of supporting Perspective 2.
> > Perspective 2 is the underdog, and *balance* is what is
> > needed.
> >
> > I'm an ISO guy, myself. ISO, the source of SGML, is a
> > Perspective 2 stronghold. It's a source of ideas that
> > Perspective 1 people have been extremely unwilling to
> > support, like HyTime, architectural forms, and groves,
> > and things that tend to make Perspective 1 people
> > pretty nervous, like Topic Maps.
> >
> > What will .NET turn out to be? I'm no insider, but I'm
> > willing to bet that Microsoft is preparing to be where
> > the pendulum is going to be -- which is a lot closer to
> > Perspective 2 than it is now.
> >
> > -- Steve
> >
> > Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
> > srn@coolheads.com
> >
> > voice: +1 972 359 8160
> > fax: +1 972 359 0270
> >
> > 1527 Northaven Drive
> > Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA
> >
> >
>
>--
>
>Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
>Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
>Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
>initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
>
>The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
>
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.xml.org/ob/adm.pl>
http://www.propylon.com
|
