Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Bob Wyman wrote: > I'm sure this too-long note won't put an end to the > concrete vs abstract debate that Tim Bray has reopened... > Such issues are so much fun to debate that people won't let > them go away. It seems that to see protocols based on abstract syntax or meta-models adopted widely and to get them to live in the places XML and ad-hoc Internet protocols based on concrete syntax do now, we'd have to terraform those places to be less hostile. I'm inclined to retort that abstract approaches should instead evolve to become more robust. That's what I get from your post in any case. It's much like the arguments in favour of RDF, FIPA AA or OMG MDA, or past arguments in favour of SGML and the OSI stack. There are certain abstract approaches I am very fond and by the way, and have worked with closely, mainly in the RDF and FIPA worlds, but until each has a concrete approach settled on, built out, and supported, I claim they'll remain interesting, but marginal technology. Bill de hÓra
|
