[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
It all revolves around where you want the most certainty and
where you will accept uncertainty. If you can live with
RSS/HTML, you can have a high degree of certainty because
you have reduced semantic loading. That is what this
comes down to: get rid of the measurements.
Uncertainty is proportional to semantic loading.
Semantic loading will not scale. Semantics are particulate.
Why do you think the speed of light is the same for
all observers? It is in superposition to all observers.
It is the measurements that are particulate.
len
From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@gmail.com]
As I understand the argument: The problem with XML is that it isn't a
single simple sloppy syntax such as HTML is, it's a metaformat that
one can use to define many nice clean formats. Since everyone can
hard-code their knowledge of HTML (or RSS), they don't have to deal
with XML's meta-ness and can just get down to business. So, I guess
he's not talking about RSS as a metadata format to describe data, but
turning actual data inside out to fit it into the conceptual model of
RSS. Presumably the web would consist of documents in HTML and data
in this RSS-like format. That would let us query data using Google's
not-a-query-language rather than forcing us to use XQuery or SQL. We
wouldn't have to worry about schemas, or nasty joins, because
everything would have the same (basic) schema and be in flat
collections that didn't have to be joined.
|
