Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
To start the argument: It is a lot harder and more expensive to build ontological relationship systems than to require conformance to a schema based vocabulary. As much as I am supporter of diversity, as anyone who has ever studied middle management knows, it is much more expensive in the middle to control both ends. Open vs closed are extremes. The common state is probably in the middle. I would really hate to build a real time simulation client without a schema and an abstract object model that enables extensibility by definitions in the AOM rather than worrying about the encoding formats. Most forms of interaction should be labeled and announced. Surprises are bad. len From: Roger L. Costello [mailto:costello@m...] A key point: 1. In an open system where there are interactions that cannot be predicted apriori, it is unreasonable to expect a "standard format". This is a key point that I argue in "Living in a Schemaless Web": http://www.xfront.com/LivingInASchemalessWeb.html
|
