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