Re: List Etiquette - It isn't really fair

On 4/18/13 6:41 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Someone starts a thread (in this case Luca and his Restpark), about something they would like to get some feedback on.
> In the very first reply, an issue arises that is at best tangential to the thread subject, but (in my opinion) has no direct bearing on it:
> issues around "SPARQL scales?" and perhaps in comparison with REST, etc.
>
> 40+ messages follow on "scaling", with the few on Restpark interspersed.
> Only the hardiest souls interested in Restpark would have combed through these messages to see the topic that interests them
> (or people who are retired with nothing better to do because they don't like gardening :-) )
>
> This is no way to run a mailing list to get the widest engagement.
> It was clear very early (third message?) that the scaling topic had arisen - at that stage the discussion should have moved to a new thread on scaling;
> or simply changed the subject line to have "SPARQL Scaling - was Restpark - Minimal…".
> Then the people who might want to discuss Restpark can do so in their own thread, and the scaling people can have their thread, without being bothered by the Restpark discussion if they don't want to be.
> Simples!
>
> I wouldn't bother, but this seems to be the normal way this lists works - check out the archive if you want!
> It makes it quite dysfunctional.
>
> Note that I did not simply add this message to the Restpark thread, which is what usually happens in this list!
>
> Best
> Hugh
>
>
Hugh,

The Restpark thread diverged for two presumptive reasons:

1. REST and SPARQL are mutually exclusive
2. Strawman on "scale" -- the simple point was supposed to be that 
consensus and adoption are mercurial pursuits due to pattern explosion.

For the record, I have nothing about attempting to layer RESTful 
interactions for simplified interactions with Linked Data. There will 
never be a time when I am against options, even when I know the path to 
consensus and adoption has a high probability of becoming an odyssey.

I few weeks ago a similar discussion emerged on Twitter, without the 
unfortunate "mutual exclusion" undertone, and a conversation developed 
progressed to the point were we  concluded that a post to this forum be 
a nice route for seeking collaborators [1][2].

That all said, I should have forked the thread (with a new topic 
heading) the moment the context for my use of "scale" was misunderstood.


Links:

1. https://twitter.com/stephanef/status/317650285470298112 -- a thread 
about RESTful patterns for working with ontologies and vocabularies
2. https://twitter.com/kidehen/status/317661048486363138 -- scheduled 
for implementation acknowledgement.

-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
Founder & CEO
OpenLink Software
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen