• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• From: Gavin Thomas Nicol <gtn@r...>
• Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:00:38 -0500
• In-reply-to: <41ML0613XHGFC0Y624XHG54NJFEB.3c6ab4b7@MChamp>
• Organization: Red Bridge Interactive, Inc.
• References: <41ML0613XHGFC0Y624XHG54NJFEB.3c6ab4b7@MChamp>

On Wednesday 13 February 2002 01:47 pm, Mike Champion wrote:
> 4- The Way Ahead lies in teaching developers the power of HTTP and
> XML, not hiding them behind  Wizards, and RPC protocols.

... and in realising that not everything, and not everyone, is part of 
"the web".

>b) puts the application back at the center of the architecture, and
> uses XML merely as a serialization mechanism and HTTP as a
> transport. 
>
> c) Thus, the data is no longer portable, and the operations are no
> longer generic, so the Services Web is disjoint from the Web that we
> know today.

I would argue that you cannoy avoid these things. Application 
semantics/interaction styles exist, one way or another. The sequence 
of interactions, and the data exchanged are necessarily 
application-specific... you cannot deduce them from the permissible 
operations without some form of definition.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• References:
  • Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
    • From: Mike Champion <mc@x...>

• Prev by Date: Re: URIs are simply names was: Re: "Abstract" URIs
• Next by Date: Re: Errors in Kendall Clark's xml.com article on QNames
• Previous by thread: Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• Next by thread: Re: WSIO vs. Semantic Web
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread