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: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:05:25 -0500
Message-Id: <ba3ae2b505b028087b40f56ed07556f8@isr.umd.edu>
Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk

On Nov 21, 2005, at 10:24 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:

> Quoting Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>:
>> On Nov 21, 2005, at 7:21 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote:
>>> Quoting Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>:

Perhaps we should take this off list.

> In context, the complexity point was:
>   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.
> For people trying to understand, and making decisions about
> adopting, RDF/OWL can be significantly more complex in the
> ways that most affect their decision.

But he didn't make this claim. Acutally, he made a muddle of claims (is 
it that RDF & OWL are a logic, or that they have bad presentation?) So, 
there's the claim that it *is* more complex and *why* it is more 
complex. Then the simple claim that *any* complexity reduces the number 
of users. So I believe you are reading far more into what he wrote.

And complex *for what*? Are we comparing relevantly similar tasks? (For 
example.) Perhaps we should look at the relative acceptance of Relax NG 
and XML Schema?

I had written a lot more, but it doesn't seem worth it. I stand by my 
point that wild-eyed bashing is no more informative than wild-eyed 
hype, and that if you are going to talk about the acceptance dimishing 
effects of complexity, you have to be fairly sophisticated in your 
discussion. Acceptance and adoption are complex things which marketers, 
economists and psychologists spend a lot of time failing to accurately 
predict. I think we should be humble in our claims.

Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2005 14:06:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:54:15 UTC