- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:57:23 +0000
- To: drew.mcdermott@yale.edu
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
Drew McDermott wrote: > > >>[jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk] >> >>BTW, why is it said that "the current WSDL standard operates at the >>syntactic level"? What is any more semantic about the things that >>are labelled "semantic"? >> >> > >By old and well established usage, "semantic" means "complex, >expressive, insightful, ours," contrasted with "syntactic," which >means "simple, weak, error-prone, theirs." > >It would be nice to avoid this term completely, but then we'd have to >change the name "Semantic Web." > > Heh, I'm sympathetic... We could always go back to talking about a 'Resource Description Framework', ie a framework for describing ... things. But too late there I think; although the original idea was an incrementally extended framework, most folks now see RDF==triples, too limiting a concept to be the overall umbrella term for this effort. cheers, Dan
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 15:57:25 UTC