W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2011

Re: Discussion meta-comment

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:42:49 +0000
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "David. Huynh" <dfhuynh@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org community" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|91071ee7fa34080d2d026318b2fbcebfn3DNhH02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|09BEFF54-B43A-44F9-A02C-20D3C0BB017D@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 14 Apr 2011, at 21:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> On 4/14/11 4:11 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>> On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Kingsley,
>>>>>> On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote:
>>>>>>>>>  I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has developed on this list of responses saying "Well this is how I do it" alienating, and thus sometimes a barrier to posting and genuine responses, and so actually stifles discussion.
>>>>>>> David/Hugh,
>>>>>>> I get the point, but don't know the comment target, so I'll respond with regards to myself as one participant in today's extensive debate with Glenn.
>>>>>>> I hope I haven't said or inferred "this is how we/I do it" without providing at the very least a link to what I am talking about etc?
>>>>>> I think that is true.
>>>>>> But that is exactly the issue I was raising.
>>>>>> As I said, I don't think this is usually the best way to respond to a post.
>>>>> Hugh,
>>>>> I am a little confused.
>>>>> The problem is providing a link to accentuate a point or not doing so?  Put differently you are talking about more text and fewer links or more links and fewer text?
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Essentially different text and no links.
>>> Hugh,
>>> In this thread lies a simple example. If you gave me a link to the thread in question I am just a click away from truly comprehending your point. This forum is about Linked Data, right ? :-)
>>> Please (seriously now) give me a link that exemplifies your point. Context is inherently subjective, public forums accentuate this reality.
>>> FWIW -- I prefer to show rather than tell, I am also an instinctive dog-fooder so I link. The power of hyperlinks (links) continue to exceed my personal imagination. The productively gains that I enjoy courtesy of links is something I still can't quite quantify. That's why I haven't made a movie, post, or presentation (yet) with regards to the utter power of links.
>>> I await your link, I do want to be much clearer about your point.
>>> Kingsley
>> Thanks for asking, Kingsley.
>> Yes, I don't really want to just repeat the posting.
>> So I looked at the latest thread on this list: "15 Ways to Think About Data Quality (Just for a Start)", to try to illustrate what I mean.
>> Briefly:
>> It started with a message with a proposal to try to quantify quality.
>> It was followed by 4 people who seemed very interested and engaged, and who began to discuss the details.
>> But that was quickly followed by a transition to an interaction that centred around discussing your demos, numbering more than 30 messages.
> But you are overlooking the opening paragraph of the post.
> You are overlooking the history of the post, including the fact that I asked Glenn to make the post.
> I asked Glenn to make the post because we've had a reoccurring debate, and I've always suspected a fundamental disconnect.
> If you could, please juxtapose the start with the final post.
>> In my opinion, after the initial phase, the discussion then made little progress towards what might have resulted in an interesting consensus with a number of people contributing.
>> An opportunity lost.
> How can it be a lost opportunity? The conversation is threaded. And if for whatever reasons the conversation is deemed linear to you, what stops you opening a new thread with a tweak to the opening paragraph which had a direct reference to opinions I expressed about the inherent subjectivity of data quality, courtesy of context fluidity. Start a new thread, don't make a reference to me, and my silence will be utterly deafening, no joke.
> As for the links, the purpose (as per usual with me) was to back up my point with live linked data. Basically, if I believe data quality subjectivity is a function of context fluidity, why not show the very point via a Linked Data page that accentuates the loose coupling of information and data that's vital to addressing the conundrum in question?
> Kingsley
I am looking at the process and outcomes I observe, rather than delving into the details.
It is not about whether people could have acted differently - it is about how people actually did act.
A lost opportunity? Clearly there were a number of people who had opinions, and seemed ready to engage in a discussion. I would have been interested to hear what they had to say. But the social dynamics (in my opinion) were such that they no longer chose to contribute.
In answer to your last question: Because the discussion then becomes about the page, rather than principle, or even original topic; but I begin to repeat myself.
Received on Thursday, 14 April 2011 22:43:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:13 UTC