W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sws-ig@w3.org > November 2005

Re: Options we have with respect to the draft charters (i.e., RE: [fwd] Draft charters for work on Semantics for WS)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 18:53:28 -0500
Message-Id: <0d909b0fc67b648e539b685051557f37@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: "'drew.mcdermott@yale.edu '" <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>, "'public-sws-ig@w3.org '" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>, "'Dan Brickley '" <danbri@w3.org>
To: "Shi, Xuan" <xshi@GEO.WVU.edu>

On Nov 21, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Shi, Xuan wrote:
[snip]
> The so-called "Semantic Web" in nature is "logical Web", the result is 
> even
> XML people cannot understand RDF/OWL due to those logics and the way 
> of RDF
> presentation. That's why this technology is not well accepted and 
> deployed.
> That's why I said here before, the more complex the system, the less 
> the
> user. It's the same to developing semantic Web services.

Uh...

I don't see how this sort of "critique" is any more substantive or 
helpful than overwrought hype. Your first sentence is pretty much a 
non-sequitur. But anyway.

I'm *always* suspicious of facile explanations of why a certain 
technology is accepted or not. There are a lot of complex, 
non-technical factors involved.

(By way of refutation to your bromide about complexity and users, I'll 
point out that XML schema is definitely more complex than OWL (by many 
measures, including computational complexity) and more widely used. So, 
eh.)

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Monday, 21 November 2005 23:53:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 16 March 2008 00:11:02 GMT