Re: Report on testing of the link relations registry

On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 7:49 PM, David Singer <> wrote:
> Formal registries can have well-defined entry criteria, expert review, stability, references/owners/specifications, and so on (if they wish). They can be trusted, stable.  But the downside is that to gain that trust and stability they need those entry criteria and reviews.
> Wikis can be dynamic, open, up to date, and so on.  But the downside is that anyone can edit them, enter poorly-thought-out ideas, incorrect information, change existing state, and so on. To gain that dynamicity they lose trustability ("don't use Wikipedia as a primary reference" for example).

If the qualities you name are actually disadvantages of wikis (which
isn't clear), do you think it would be solvable by just using a wiki
alone, but clearly marking some versions of the page as stable and
reviewed, and others as unstable and unreviewed?  Wouldn't this be
more convenient than having a wiki plus some totally separate

> But much of the criticism of the registries has been off the mark, I think.  Registries do what they are asked to do; some community decides what the entrance/review criteria area, what needs to be documented, and so on, and then the registry helps keep the resulting database and to apply the agreed rules.  I think that much of this discussion has the feel of setting up strawmen and then coming to conclusions based on those strawmen.
> If the design of a registry is not appropriate for a community, then re-design it.

That's what we're doing.  The redesign some of us prefer is "a wiki".  :)

Received on Sunday, 5 September 2010 20:07:07 UTC