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

Re: Discussion meta-comment

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 20:02:37 -0400
Message-ID: <4DA78B1D.4040603@openlinksw.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org
On 4/14/11 6:42 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> 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
> Hi,
> 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.

Hugh,

I don't understand your point; certainly not in a way that I would like 
to discuss any further in this public space. Thus, we can discuss 
further (offline) if you choose.

Kingsley


> Best
> Hugh
>
>
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 00:03:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:32 UTC