Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Yeah, that's been the observable behavior all the way back to MULTICS and possibly before. A lot effort is tossed at a large problem but solving the smaller subproblems leads to useful bits. Some say, dare to do less, and maybe that works, but sometimes daring to more gets a lot done, just not everything one set out to do. D'oh. I'm no expert in this but... The problem here is that the Semantic Web tech, as John Sowa and others point out on their lists, is recreating technology that has been successfully created before and worked well. The difference is scale and architecture. It seems to me that if it fails at the scale and architecture asked for, even if it leaves some useful bits behind, they are mostly the same useful bits we already have except for using URI naming. len From: Michael Champion [mailto:mc@x...] On Jun 3, 2004, at 9:32 AM, DuCharme, Bob (LNG-CHO) wrote: > the semantic web is something that > will inspire great ideas that get implemented in a different, more > practical > project? For what it's worth, that's exactly the point I was trying to make in my response to Len.
|
