W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > June 2003

RE: A few lessons I have learned (June, '03)

From: Danny Ayers <danny666@virgilio.it>
Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 10:12:55 +0200
To: "Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Roger L. Costello" <costello@mitre.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BKELLDAGKABIOCHDFDBPAENDCPAA.danny666@virgilio.it>

Someone, somewhere expressed Roger's suggestion more generally with
something like "be strict with what you produce and liberal with what you
consume". Although it sounds intuitively appealing, there does seem to be
evidence (around RSS) that overall drift towards laxness can be a result.
But as Frank says, you simply might not have the choice of strict in/strict

Re. the list in general - great stuff. The biggest potential problem I see
with this set of material is that it does seem very all or nothing, little
possibility for the kind of incremental adoption that might appeal to
current web service developers.


ps. Mike - congrats on the new book!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Frank Manola
> Sent: 07 June 2003 00:13
> To: Roger L. Costello
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A few lessons I have learned (June, '03)
> Actually, the principle seems simply to be whether you are in a position
> to force everyone to play to the same tune, period.  Open or closed
> system may be a factor in determining whether you're in that position or
> not, but it's not the only factor, and may play no role at all.  For
> example, the US Internal Revenue Service is in a position to insist that
> US taxpayers use whatever forms the IRS tells us to.  They do provide
> for both paper and Internet submissions, so there's some flexibility,
> but what I'm waiting for is an official IRS tax ontology (reinforced by
> IRS-specified rules providing the official definitions of all the
> calculations), and tax returns described by RDF/OWL triples using terms
> and calculations from that ontology.  Want to start a pool on when we'll
> be able to do that (for real)?
> --Frank
> Roger L. Costello wrote:
> > Mike Daconta wrote:
> >
> >
> >>I strongly disagree with this principle as it reduces the ability to
> >>robustly validate documents.  The principle you are expressing is
> >>useful when the instance documents are subject to change.  That is
> >>not the case for all instance documents in all vertical domains.
> >>Thus the principle is only valid on one side of the change spectrum
> >>and cannot be considered a universal principle.
> >>
> >
> > In a closed sytem you may be able to force everyone to play to the same
> > tune.  Expanding/changing the tune wreaks havoc on everyone.  In an open
> > system such as the WWW it's unreasonable to expect everyone to
> > harmonize.  Expect disharmony. /Roger
> >
> >
> --
> Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
> 202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
> mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Saturday, 7 June 2003 04:16:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:42 UTC