Re: Facebok a leader of _federated_ social networking?

On 7/2/13 7:42 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3 July 2013 01:35, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com 
> <mailto:kidehen@openlinksw.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 7/2/13 6:35 PM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>>     Quoting Kingsley Idehen (2013-07-02 23:31:13)
>>>     In a way, Linked Data is actually Linked Open Data (when its based on
>>>     standards). The problem is that Linked Open Data is now perceived as
>>>     meaning Publicly available Linked Data (just like "Open Source" and
>>>     "Free Software" were never meant to mean Free as in $0.00 software
>>>     etc..)
>>     Now I am _really_ confused.
>>
>>     Do you now say that "Linked Open Data" is simply "Linked Data" that
>>     follows Open standards, and not about being public available?
>
>     As I said, we have a terminology mess++.
>
>     In the W3C world clearly Linked Open Data (LOD) is now pitched as
>     Public Linked Data. But that kind of positioning makes no sense
>     and is utterly indefensible.
>
>     "Open systems were those that would meet agreed specifications or
>     standards. This resulted in the formation of X/Open Company Ltd
>     whose remit was, and today in the guise of The Open Group remains,
>     to define a comprehensive open systems environment. Open systems,
>     they declared, would save on costs, attract a wider portfolio of
>     applications and competition on equal terms. X/Open chose the UNIX
>     system as the platform for the basis of open systems."
>
>     -- excerpt from Unix History [1] (I worked as a Unix consultant at
>     Unisys in the late 80's prior to founding OpenLink Software).
>
>>     Seems to me that's the complete opposite as W3C is saying at
>>     <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#x5-star-linked-open-data>  <http://www.w3.org/TR/ld-glossary/#x5-star-linked-open-data>:
>>>     5 Star Linked Open Data refers to an incremental framework for
>>>     deploying data. Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the Web and initiator
>>>     of the Linked Data project, suggested a 5 star deployment scheme for
>>>     Linked Open Data. The 5 Star Linked Data system is cumulative. Each
>>>     additional star presumes the data meets the criteria of the previous
>>>     step(s). 5 Star Linked Open Data includes an Open License (expression
>>>     of rights) and assumes publications on the public Web.
>>>
>>>     Organizations may elect to publish 5 Star Linked Data, without the
>>>     word "open", implying that the data does not include an Open License
>>>     (expression of rights) and does not imply publication on the public
>>>     Web.
>>     Regards,
>>
>>       - Jonas
>>
>
>     Yes, they are saying the complete opposite.
>
>     "Open" doesn't mean public, it never has re., technology. "Open"
>     as popularized by Unix was all about standards and
>     interoperability. URIs and a standard model for structured data
>     representation lead to Linked (due to HTTP URIs) Open Data (due to
>     EAV). You have a fine-grained Semantic Web (due to RDF which makes
>     Relationship Semantics *explicit* and machine-comprehensible).
>
>     Anyway, you should work with terminology that works best for you,
>     getting the message across (as coherently as possible) is what
>     matters the most :-)
>
>     Links:
>
>     1. http://www.unix.org/what_is_unix/history_timeline.html -- Unix
>     History & Timeline .
>
>
> Yes, the term open is really difficult.  I recent message I got from 
> Richard Stallman hammers this home:
>
> 'the term "open source", which is (sad to say) the slogan of people 
> who reject our ideals. Another way you can help us is by saying 
> "free", or "free/libre to make things clearer.'
>
> So the same term can have advocacy meaning opposite things in the 
> context.  The key here is to look past the form and through to the 
> function.  We're interested in federation ... this means one system 
> connecting to another.  Facebook profiles are standards compliant and 
> hence easy to federate with.  If a couple of projects in the FSW took 
> a good look at how facebook did profiles and made their own (better) 
> versions ... I think we could have demonstrable federation by end of year.

Yes.

If we want functioning federation we need to look to "Open" standards 
plus dollops of tolerance re., alternative viewpoints that will 
ultimately :-)

Kingsley
>
>
>     -- 
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Kingsley Idehen	
>     Founder & CEO
>     OpenLink Software
>     Company Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
>     Personal Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen  <http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
>     Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
>     Google+ Profile:https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
>     LinkedIn Profile:http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>
>
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen