Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
It all revolves around where you want the most certainty and where you will accept uncertainty. If you can live with RSS/HTML, you can have a high degree of certainty because you have reduced semantic loading. That is what this comes down to: get rid of the measurements. Uncertainty is proportional to semantic loading. Semantic loading will not scale. Semantics are particulate. Why do you think the speed of light is the same for all observers? It is in superposition to all observers. It is the measurements that are particulate. len From: Michael Champion [mailto:michaelc.champion@g...] As I understand the argument: The problem with XML is that it isn't a single simple sloppy syntax such as HTML is, it's a metaformat that one can use to define many nice clean formats. Since everyone can hard-code their knowledge of HTML (or RSS), they don't have to deal with XML's meta-ness and can just get down to business. So, I guess he's not talking about RSS as a metadata format to describe data, but turning actual data inside out to fit it into the conceptual model of RSS. Presumably the web would consist of documents in HTML and data in this RSS-like format. That would let us query data using Google's not-a-query-language rather than forcing us to use XQuery or SQL. We wouldn't have to worry about schemas, or nasty joins, because everything would have the same (basic) schema and be in flat collections that didn't have to be joined.
|
