Re: Facebok a leader of _federated_ social networking?

On 3 July 2013 09:11, Jonas Smedegaard <dr@jones.dk> wrote:

> Quoting Kingsley Idehen (2013-07-03 01:35:21)
> >In the W3C world clearly Linked Open Data (LOD) is now pitched as
> >Public Linked Data. But that kind of positioning makes no sense and is
> >utterly indefensible.
> >
> >"Open systems were those that would meet agreed specifications or
> >standards. This resulted in the formation of X/Open Company Ltd whose
> >remit was, and today in the guise of The Open Group remains, to define
> >a comprehensive open systems environment. Open systems, they declared,
> >would save on costs, attract a wider portfolio of applications and
> >competition on equal terms. X/Open chose the UNIX system as the
> >platform for the basis of open systems."
> >
> >-- excerpt from Unix History [1] (I worked as a Unix consultant at
> >Unisys in the late 80's prior to founding OpenLink Software).
>
> Thanks for explaining how not even "Linked Open Data" (emphasized by
> capital letters and quotes as being a concept rather than three words
> with individual meaning) is open for interpretation.
>
> In this thread, when explaining what _I_ got confused about, I was in
> fact talking about a different concept than "Open systems".
>
> I shall consider to instead use linked-open-data-as-defined-by-W3C in
> the future, when myself talking about what I mean.
>

Linked (Open) Data is not defined normatively anywhere by the W3C.  Many
other terms are but, LD is an informal note.  You can tell it's being used
when you see interop as easy as clicking hyperlinks ... it's a bit like the
famous comment of pornography -- 'I cant define it, but I know it when I
see it' :)


>
>
> Regards,
>
>  - Jonas
>
> --
>  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
>  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
>
>  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
>