W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2011 02:05:07 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTinriRA6E_Sb6NQP4+XgaBNPc7fkDg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>wrote:

> On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:07, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
> >> Google won't scrap schema.org because your thought experiment proved
> that it's not “semantically clear.”
> >
> > Richard, that wasn't the point. You mocked the idea that "semantically
> > clear" could be defined. I responded with an attempt.
>
> I have no interest in theoretical discussions that are detached from
> application.
>

I assume you mean you are not interested in discussions of theory that are
detached from application.

In any case this is a non-sequitor. The definition is offered because some,
including myself, think that there are important classes of applications for
which it is an essential ingredient of success (like some of the ones I need
to build), and because you implied that defining what we meant was not
feasible.


> >> I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
> idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
> >
> > We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread you will say
> > what *will* be useful for evaluating web technologies.
>
> Adoption trends, ergonomics, fit with the existing technology ecosystem,
> existence of migration paths, marketability, potential of network effects.
>

Does what the technology *accomplishes* fit in there somewhere? Looking at
the above, one might conclude that a successful Ponzi scheme of some sort
would score well.

Regards,
Alan
Received on Thursday, 16 June 2011 06:05:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:21:13 UTC