Re: The Test of Independent Invention (was: What Does Point Number 3 of TimBL's Linked Data Mean?)

In an ideal world where intellectual property issues would be settled amicably this would be true. Recent battles in the wireless world show a different approach is applied. The only domains expected to be allow for a merger are those linked open data, open access and open source based.

Because once technologies are merged one playing field develops in which monetizing value becomes obvious hence competition for profits and thus ground for discord.

There will thus be universal but not unique technologies co-existing and alas competing.


 
Milton Ponson
GSM: +297 747 8280
PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
Project Paradigm: A structured approach to bringing the tools for sustainable development to all stakeholders worldwide by creating ICT tools for NGOs worldwide and: providing online access to web sites and repositories of data and information for sustainable development

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.



________________________________
 From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com> 
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org> 
Sent: Sunday, June 23, 2013 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: The Test of Independent Invention (was: What Does Point Number  3 of  TimBL's Linked Data Mean?)
 

I hope you realize that the point of that thought experiment is to 
ensure that the technology in question is sufficiently powerful and 
flexible, so that *if* a parallel technology were discovered, the two 
could be extended to encompass each other with minimal added cost -- 
*not* that it is in any way desirable to have such parallel technologies.

David

On 06/22/2013 08:55 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
> It took me quite a while to understand this fully.  IMHO, it is really
> worth digesting.  I think it also sheds light on how to approach some of
> the topics raised in the last week.


>
> [[
>
> *The Test of Independent Invention*
>
> There's a test I use for technology which the Consortium is thinking of
> adopting, and I'll call it the Independent Invention test. Just suppose
> that someone had invented exactly the same system somewhere else, but
> made all the arbitrary decisions differently. Suppose after many years
> of development and adoption, the two systems came together. Would they
> work together?
>
> Take the Web. I tried to make it pass the test. Suppose someone had (and
> it was quite likely) invented a World Wide Web system somewhere else
> with the same principles. Suppose they called it the Multi Media Mesh
> (tm) and based it on Media Resource Identifiers(tm), the MultiMedia
> Transport Protocol(tm), and a Multi Media Markup Language(tm). After a
> few years, the Web and the Mesh meet. What is the damage?
>
> A huge battle, involving the abandonment of projects, conversion or loss
> of data?
> Division of the world by a border commission into two separate communities?
> Smooth integration with only incremental effort?
>
> Obviously we are looking for the latter option. Fortunately, we could
> immediately extend URIs to include "mmtp://" and extend MRIs to include
> "http;\\". We could make gateways, and on the better browsers
> immediately configure them to go through a gateway when finding a URI of
> the new type. *
>
> The URI space is universal: it covers all addresses of all accessible
> objects. But it does not have to be the only universal space. Universal,
> but not unique.*
>
> -- Tim Berners-Lee
>
> ]]