W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Issue-57

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 05:05:55 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTim8QiqW0ztoahbZLW9TCV3O2hfW1g@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Cc: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>, Jeni Tennison <jeni@jenitennison.com>, "www-tag@w3.org List" <www-tag@w3.org>
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 9:50 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> I do not think that is a fair characterization.  Richard's example is
> *not* opting out of machine inference.  It is merely opting out of
> certain inferences that *some* applications need but others do *not*
> need.  And that is as it *should* be, as it is not possible to cater to
> *all* applications.
> The subtle mistake that is being made repeatedly here is in assuming
> that someone's data is *wrong* (or socially irresponsible) if it
> conflates two things that we humans find useful to distinguish, such as
> people versus web pages -- *even* if the class of applications for which
> that data is intended have no need to make such a distinction!

Pat has it right:

On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 4:33 AM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
> Bear in mind that the very first principle of the Web is that the *publisher* of the data, who asserts these things about dogs or pictures of dogs, cannot possibly know what 'context of use' is going to be relevant to the *user* of the published content


David, we are not aiming for application developers to use the web as
scratchpad instead of a relational database with the mind of then
sucking it back in for their proprietary application. We don't *need*
the web for that. The idea that data publishers should have in mind
exactly how their data is supposed to be used, and then choose to use
public vocabulary however they feel like it is just broken. It is
missing the point.

Received on Tuesday, 14 June 2011 04:06:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:33:10 UTC