Re: RE : Re: Federation protocols

On 12 June 2013 16:18, Michiel B. de Jong <anything@michielbdejong.com>wrote:

> just a small point of terminology,
>
>
> On 2013-06-12 14:29, Goix Laurent Walter wrote:
>
>> i’m interested in both approaches, although i’d like to see really
>> some gathering around a single - main - bottom-up project as main
>> driver for all the activities (also as leitmotiv of the top-down
>> documentation and knowledge sharing part)
>>
>
> To encourage people to gather around a single standard would be top-down,
> not bottom-up, the "top" being this one single standard, and the "bottom"
> being all the software projects that are being encouraged to implement that
> standard.
>
> With bottom-up i mean everybody can take pro-active initiatives "at the
> bottom", and we use this forum to compare notes and learn "up" from each
> other ("describe").
>
> With top-down i mean trying to reach consensus ("top") and to prescribe
> that consensus "down" to the software projects.
>

Slighlty confusing standard with project.

To gather around an interoperable STANDARD allows the bottom up approach to
PROJECTS.

Example:  in the linked data STANDARD, everyone can make a (bottom up)
vocabulary for their PROJECT and they are 100% gauranteed to interoperate
with each other.  In this way they more popular vocabularies organically
rise.  A sort of democracy like the web which can have many web sites all
linkable to each other.

A permissive framework or standard allows a bottom up approach.  The top
down approach to PROJECTS, means, everyone fork my code base and we'll be
fine, as long as you use my protocol.  If you use a different (and here's
the important bit) "but equally powerful" protocol, you will NOT be
guaranteed interop.  Now it doesnt help that *everyone* thinks their
standard is interoperable.  In truth only about 10% are the finished
product and it normally takes many years of peer review to reveal why (the
standards process).

In a nutshell this is why standards enable projects, but projects dont
necessary equal standards.  So if you get it the right way round, you'll be
pretty sure of federation.  If you get it the wrong way round, you'll quite
possibly end up with lego pieces that are hard to join (ie how we got to
where we are)

Sorry, confusing I know!