W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2010

Re: isDefinedBy and isDescribedBy, Tale of two missing predicates

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2010 12:29:54 -0400
Message-ID: <4CD43102.6070404@openlinksw.com>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
CC: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
On 11/5/10 11:19 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
> Kingsley,
>
>> My only gripe is with mutual exclusion. "..dropping 303..." didn't come
>> across as adding an option to the mix. Ditto positioning 303 as a mandate,
>> which it's never really been.
> I think you read too much conspiracy into 140 characters.
>
> Ian
>
Ian,

Not really, my biggest fear is the FUD onslaught to come (from outside 
the community), especially now that Linked Data is demonstrably hitting 
critical mass.

I think innovating behind the concept is better than innovating in front 
of it.

I (and I am sure you) want to have very simple discussions about Linked 
Data that veer (rapidly) to value proposition demonstration and 
crystallization. We can't get bogged down with mechanics, not in 2010. :-)


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Friday, 5 November 2010 16:30:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:51 UTC