Lists Home |
Date Index |
email@example.com (Mike Champion) writes:
That looks like an incredibly complicated game of catch, where everyone
is throwing stuff back and forth and sliding into home plate
>In my opinion, which seems to be shared by many people on the WSA WG,
>FWIW, The Web As We Know It is "Scenario 0" in David's framework: The
>semantics of the "service" are negotiated totally out of band or
>inmplicitly understood by a human reading the page, and the "web
>service description" consists solely of the URI.
>The Semantic Web could be Scenario N in his framework, where the
>semantic descriptions are machine processable and somehow tie into the
>syntactic description of the web page or service invocation in a way
>that a machine could infer.
>Whether or not David's framework can be made to work in a formal
>architecture, it represents the SPIRIT of what I think is needed --
>integrating the Web, Web services, and the Semantic Web viewpoints as
>special cases of one another rather than as alternate "paradigms" that
>must be accepted or rejected as dogma.
You can believe that if it's what it takes to keep working on it, but it
looks like the W3C is building a stack to the sky. That stack isn't the
chaotic Tower of Babel that Mark Pesce and others feared XML would
create, but an ever-growing semantic stack that tries too hard to create
order where tolerance for chaos might be a wiser strategy.
It's an excellent illustration of what can happen when you insist on
controlling meaning, I guess. That basic dogma seems to be common
across the SW, WS, and even WXS.
Ring around the content, a pocket full of brackets
Errors, errors, all fall down!
http://simonstl.com -- http://monasticxml.org