- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>
- Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:03:32 -0500
- To: jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk
- Cc: public-sws-ig@w3.org
On Nov 22, 2005, at 1:56 PM, jeff@inf.ed.ac.uk wrote: > Quoting Bijan Parsia <bparsia@isr.umd.edu>: > >>> 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?) > > It was "and", rather than a muddle. :) The "and" doesn't alleviate the muddle. >> 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. > > I wasn't trying merely to repeat the original point. I would then appreciate it if you marked that more clearly. *I* certainly wasn't arguing that there's *NO* complexity argument to be made. >> 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? > > Of course there are sometimes other factors which are more important. There are *usually* a lot of other factors that must be weighed carefully. And turning complaints about complexity into *useful actions* is *REALLY* hard. For example, if you offer *inadequate* expressivity (since it's "simpler") then you make a lot of people's lives harder because they can't directly say what they need to say and have to compensate. >> 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. > > Those are good points; Thanks. > however, if we end up believing that it's > too hard to tell whether we're making things better or worse, Thank goodness I don't believe this. I do believe in being humble about the grounds and certainy of my claims. Just as I see no need to hype the benefits, I see no need to hype the detriments. > we're likely to continue on our present course, which seems to > be to make web services Er...I thought we were debating the semantic web! > increasingly complicated and complex. But if that's what's required to meet needs...what's the problem? Complexity == bad, simpliciter, is a pretty lame argument. This isn't to say that I'm a fan of the cluttered, the baroque, and the painful. My friends and enemies know well otherwise. However, I prefer the discussion to be direct, grounded, and sensible. Well, a good complaintfest all around is good fun, but I don't see that the current thread is either useful or entertaining. And yet, I participate. Go me! Cheers, Bijan.
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 00:04:07 UTC