Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
I agree with that. Syntax is not trivial because it is habitual. I also think, purely sociologically, that the zeitgeist is not ripe for another major change. Even if the sebweb is positioned as just a completion of the current web, I don't sense a desire out here to take on yet another technology to do what we are doing with the current ones. A developer made a remark to me a few days ago that stuck with me: "What I dislike is having to tell the customer that we almost have working what we had working five years ago." I am thinking of Tim Bray's latest blog on web services. We often do find that the thing we can do now that works is better than the thing we can do next year that is harder and more to learn to get only slightly better results. I spent a few cycles making a Foxpro database generate ERDs in VML. It's a stupid pet trick, but my customers are wild for it. Now I can spend more cycles making it generate Visio, but so far, no one is asking for that. If they do, I will, but in the commercial world, it is usually best to wait until they do ask. Who is asking for the Semantic Web? len From: Elliotte Rusty Harold [mailto:elharo@m...] Part of what bothers me about the semantic web is syntax. It's too ugly to be practical. And syntax does matter. XML succeeded where SGML failed not because XML can do anything SGML can't (except maybe internationalization) but because the XML syntax story is cleaner and more approachable. The RDF syntax is just too ugly to be plausible.
|
