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

Re: Discussion meta-comment

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 16:01:50 +0000
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
CC: "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|029cfdffc40f8b7cd2fd06740277b6c2n3EH2802hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|15219B3B-11B3-4F37-BC7B-EE894306F199@ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 15 Apr 2011, at 01:02, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

> 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

Hi Kingsley,
I guess it is best if we consider this a natural conclusion then.
Thank you for trying.
Very best
Received on Friday, 15 April 2011 16:02:55 UTC

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