- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002 18:07:52 +0100
- To: Peter Crowther <peter.crowther@networkinference.com>
- Cc: "'Jim Hendler'" <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
At 11:52 AM 6/12/02 +0100, Peter Crowther wrote: >1) Bilateral communications rather than peer-to-peer, allowing effective >communication between producer and consumer of specification; > >2) Well-understood problem domains, such as finance, giving a higer base of >common understanding to start with; > >3) Restricted problem domains, such as a credit card application, giving a >limited scope for any such communication; > >4) Past experience of similar problems, giving a history of known solutions; > >5) Shared language between producer and consumer of specification; > >6) Limited scope of implementation, for example a single banking system >communicating with a central card issuer system; > >7) Limited variation of environment, for example a credit card system that >deploys particular card swipe hardware and software. > >All of these simplifying factors were present in your example. None of >these simplifying factors are present on the semantic web. I consider the >comparison between the two cases to be specious for that reason. But it is exactly (2)-(5) that I expect to see in the near-term semantic web. More specifically, my perception is that RDF provides a common framework for integrating a range of applications with well-understood problem domains -- for example, that is what I see in the oft-quoted Scientific American article: the various subsystems already exist today and are well understood but don't have the means to share the information they use in common. Of course there are more possibilities in the longer-term, but I perceive most of those are still research topics. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 12 June 2002 13:07:33 UTC