- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:14:53 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Alan, > Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I > spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and > working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't > understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama. Welcome to the real world. Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 12 Jun 2011, at 11:12, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> David, as you know, it is trivial to distinguish in representation >> the difference between an information object and a person. I don't >> understand why you keep repeating this misinformation. >> >> -Alan >> >> >> It is trivial to distinguish between an information resource and >> the resource it talks about > > There is no "if". In the below you are talking about matters other > than being able to make the distinction. > >> if you are 1) developing a custom system under your control for >> your own needs, which is not extensible and does not have to >> integrate code published by developers with a different knowledge >> base than you > > Please give me some evidence for this. My experience (not > insignificant) is otherwise. > >> -and- 2) do not have end users who you have to educate in the >> distinction between an info resource and an "other web resource" so >> that they can effectively add content to your system. > > Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I > spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and > working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't > understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama. > >> However, it is not trivial to add this distinction when you are >> working in an extensible system which you do not control > > It depends on the manner in which the system is made extensible. > Architecture and good design matters. However, It is this attitude > that has led, in part, to the prulgation of schema.org as a closed > architecture. > >> or when you do not have the resources to invest in reeducation > camps to change the way end users and other developers think. > > As an educator, in part, I do not consider educating people to require > investing in reeducation camps. In my opinion, if you want to build a > system by which data can be effectively aggregated and put to novel > use by machines (this is what I thought we were doing) then I think > you will fail if you think that will come by continuing to set no > standards for how these systems communicate meaning and what kind of > knowledge someone needs to have to work with them correctly. i cite > the experience of the last 50 years of computer technology as > evidence. > > -Alan > > > >> >> I invite anyone who disagrees and who believes this is trivial to >> actually try effectively communicating the distinction made by >> httpRange-14 to an outside technology community and to attempt the >> social change necessary to make it work consistently in practice. >> >> Best,Lin >> >>
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:15:35 UTC