Re: Semantic web architectural requirement [was Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle]

Hi Alan,

I don't want to waste a lot of time on a meta-discussion, so I'll just
note:

- Your point about my communication style is well taken.  I'm sure I'm
guilty of appearing arrogant and annoyingly persistent at times, and
I'll try to improve, though I will still have to speak up when I think
something needs to be said, just as I hope you will continue to do.

- I do not want this one criticism of Jonathan's chairing skills to be
taken as anything more than that, nor do I want it to be overstated.  I
think Jonathan has worked hard and made some excellent contributions.
But I do stand by my criticism on this point.  I also understand that
you disagree.

- If you see this:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Jun/0006.html 
> > [[
> >  The client must be able to use a simple, architecturally
> >  authoritative algorithm to determine, with full fidelity, 
> >  the URI owner's formally expressed identity for the resource.
> > ]]
as merely "another restatement of the ideas [I] have been promoting 
for several years" then I really don't know what to say, as apparently
you (and apparently Jonathan) are drawing connections between my
writings that I simply do not understand.  I certainly would *like* to
come to an over-arching theory that ties together all of what I've said
about semantic web architecture, but thus far I'm still struggling
incrementally trying to figure it out.  So if you (or Jonathan) know
what that over-arching theory is that I keep restating then please tell
*me* what it is.  Otherwise I am at a loss to know what it is that you
think the above architectural requirement is restating.

- In spite of Jonathan's disparaging remarks, I believe he and I
actually *agree* on most aspect of web architecture.  But the
differences get highlighted because those are what get discussed the
most, i.e., that's where the action is -- we're trying to push the
frontier.

Best wishes,
David


On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 17:45 -0400, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> > Jonathan,
> >
> > On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 11:57 +0000, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM, David Booth <david@dbooth.org> wrote:
> >> > [Moving this comment to the AWWSW list, as I think it will be more
> >> > appropriate there.]
> >>
> >> I'm not going to rule it out of order,
> >
> > I would hope not, since this topic clearly falls within the intended
> > scope of this group: "the intersection of Web architecture and the
> > Semantic Web".
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/
> 
> The governing statement Jonathan refers to is: "The AWWSW task group
> is a highly informal discussion group that investigates the expression
> of Web architecture in RDF, with particular attention to the HTTP
> protocol and the Semantic Web."
> 
> i.e. what is the ontology that should be built that captures the
> architecture of the web.
> 
> >> but I'm not keen on discussing
> >> this topic here for a couple of reasons. First, I don't see how it
> >> advances our goal of producing an ontology that bears on web
> >> architecture, and I would like to stay on task (see
> >> http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/awwsw/). If anything *did* come of it, it
> >> would be prescriptive and therefore out of charter for this group.
> >
> > I don't think that's true.  Even though this group does not have the
> > authority to issue W3C Recommendations, we certainly can usefully
> > elucidate the issues and make recommendations (with lower case "r") to
> > other groups that do have such authority.
> 
> Indeed. But it should be clear that there is no consensus emerging on
> the ideas that you have been promoting, so this is unlikely to happen.
> 
> >> Second, you have brought it up many times before, there is no new
> >> information this time around,
> >
> > That is a very bizarre claim.  I have *never* before articulated this
> > architectural requirement.  Yesterday's statement of this requirement
> > was a first *anywhere*:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-awwsw/2011Jun/0006.html
> > [[
> >  The client must be able to use a simple, architecturally
> >  authoritative algorithm to determine, with full fidelity,
> >  the URI owner's formally expressed identity for the resource.
> > ]]
> 
> This appeared to me, as well, as another restatement of the ideas you
> have been promoting for several years.
> 
> >> and there never seems to be any progress
> >> on it - I don't see anyone learning anything from the discussions,
> >
> > I have definitely seen progress.  Some are learning and some are not.  I
> > don't know what I can do about that.
> 
> I'm not sure either. But I will concur with Jonathan that the
> conversation seems to go round and round and feels unproductive.
> Perhaps if there was a second person in the group who grokked the
> ideas and also thought they had merit there would be opportunity for
> engaging discussion.
> 
> >> and
> >> people just get angry at each other. This is wasteful of personal
> >> energy and not good for morale, which is already too low.
> >
> > If you (or anyone else) are getting angry then I think it is important
> > to step back and recognize that different people will come into these
> > discussions with different perspectives and that's okay.  We all need to
> > have patience and do our best to understand each other's technical
> > points.
> 
> I have done my best. Whenever I have understood the ideas, I have
> thought them to be technically incorrect or misguided.
> 
> > I have a long history of posting to W3C forums, and although nobody is
> > perfect, I dare say I doubt very much that *anyone* would accuse me of
> > falling below average in my commitment to being polite, respectful,
> > in-scope and constructive.
> 
> On this specific issue, in this specific forum, the conversation
> hasn't felt constructive, at least insofar as it surrounds the
> promotion of your views of semweb architecture. On the matter of
> scope, I have pointed out where there is a disconnect. I concur that
> you have always been polite and respectful in your interactions,
> except perhaps (indirectly) to the extent that these particular ideas
> keep being raised without uptake, and it feels, as has been said,
> repetitive and unproductive.
> 
> >> I plan to move the issue-57 work back to www-tag. I appreciate all the
> >> help I've received on it here but it's not the group's main purpose
> >> any more. For me the problem that created this list is now solved and
> >> we can move on and finish up. I suggest that any further discussion
> >> here should be focussed on ontology building, even if it's only to
> >> publish the single property that I think will be needed for issue-57.
> >> I hope we can be done by the end of the year.
> >
> > Jonathan, somehow my way of thinking about these architectural issues
> > seems to rub you the wrong way -- perhaps we have different world views
> > or something.  I am sorry for that.  I have no idea why, nor do I know
> > what I can do about it.  I have tried in the past to figure it out, but
> > I am still baffled.
> 
> I have tried to articulate a number of issues over time, spending a
> not insignificant amount of time trying to carefully identify and
> communicate what the issues are. Not once have I seen any adjustment
> or indication that the points I have raised has had any effect on the
> presentation or content of these ideas. Nor have they moved me. This
> is not the case as I engage others in *this* forum, where I find my
> own position has moved and feel that ideas and experience I have is
> considered.
> 
> > But regardless, this is a technical forum and we
> > both have a professional responsibility to put aside any personal
> > feelings we may have about each other's way of thinking -- or world view
> > or whatever it is -- and focus on the technical issues and discuss each
> > point on its own merits.
> 
> I know Jonathan pretty well and I will vouch that what motivates this
> is not personal feelings, but honest desire that this forum be
> productive, and growing frustration that too much of the airtime has
> been dominated by the unproductive discussion of these ideas.
> 
> > This includes (politely) pointing out any important errors that we think others have made, acknowledging our own
> > errors when we make them, and doing our best to contribute
> > constructively to the community's overall understanding of the topic.
> 
> Regarding contributing to the community's understanding, I don't feel
> you do that. You present your material as if it was accepted
> architecture, with no humility and no indication that there are other
> points of view. I have given you my assessment on a number of
> occasions that the ideas do the opposite - that they confuse and
> mislead, and I have done my best to explain why.
> 
> > Furthermore, if you are going to chair this group, you have a
> > responsibility to act in an unbiased manner toward all contributors, and
> > frankly, your message above does *not* reflect an unbiased view.
> 
> It is a chairs responsibility to try to ensure that the conversation
> is productive. Unfortunately that sometimes means telling someone
> something they don't want to hear. I see no specific bias nor any
> comment that does not resonate with my own assessments. Rather I see
> that this issue has been festering for quite some time and I am glad
> that Jonathan has raised it.
> 
> Here is one constructive suggestion. Consider approaching other
> members of the group individually to solicit their views. Perhaps you
> will find, in the end, bias. That would be interesting to learn. But
> also listen for the message you don't want to hear.
> 
> As kindly as I can,
> Alan
> 
> 
> 

-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
http://dbooth.org/

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of his employer.

Received on Monday, 27 June 2011 20:35:35 UTC