Re: Proposed restatement of syntax-based interoperability princip le ( was RE: Action item on syntax-based interoperability)

Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:

> Up from the depths of cracking wise...
> I don't believe syntax is fundamental in the sense that applications 
> have to share a syntax to interoperate.  Again, there are too many 
> existence proofs that disprove this is necessary.  

I'd like to hear about them.

> o Convenient - this is a piece of the architecture of any 
> information system for which it is not difficult to get buy in.
> Most designer, manager, data owner or supplier will understand 
> why this makes life more convenient.

If that were the case, surely this thread would be unneccessary?

> Cheap and convenient may not be words that resonate loftily in 
> an architectural tome, but they make sense, even, common sense. 
> And that has value.  IMO, an architecture document of the 
> primacy of this one should not include statements of religion, 

Sorry, I'm with Tim Bray. Syntax has been fundamental to web based 
interop in my experience and observation. Whether or not we have a 
good theory on the matter to back that up is another matter - I 
suspect the current notion of "partial understanding" doing the 
rounds in semweb circles might have something to offer.

On the other hand it seems that saying syntax (or an indexical) is 
fundamental, or more fundamental to interoperation than either 
semantics or shared models, is at best troubling, at worst heresy. 
I'll close by noting  that no-one is saying that syntax is sufficient.

Bill de hÓra

Received on Monday, 27 October 2003 12:26:10 UTC