Re: should we standardize things not yet widely deployed?

Hi Sandro,

On 6 Mar 2011, at 01:24, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> I think you're oversimplifying the interplay of invention, adoption, and
> standardization.
...
> Can you imagine if there
> were 75 different standards for encoding movies onto plastic disks

I'm glad Steve addressed this question so well.

> RDF itself was standardized before significant deployment, twice.  You
> could argue that caused many of its problems, and I'd agree.

You are right to point out that RDF itself was standardized before deployment, and we may not be here having this conversation if it hadn't been done that way.

When this group's work goes to REC in 2013, you know what people will say? That it took W3C sixteen years to finally produce a version of RDF that doesn't suck.

Why did it take so long? Certainly not because of any lack in skill or intelligence of the people involved. It took so long because there was not enough experience to inform the design. Even the smartest people are really bad at predicting the future if there is not enough data to inform the prediction. So without data to rely on, all sorts of stuff got done that seemed like a good idea at the time, but turned out not to work well once “normal” people tried to use it.

> On the other hand, what was the alternative?  

Maybe there was no alternative at the time. But we *do* have an alternative now. RDF is deployed, there are thousands of people working with it, there are millions of documents published, there are companies betting their existence on the technology. I think that their experience and what can be learned from it is a *MUCH* better guide than us simply using our skill and intelligence to predict future needs.

All standardization in the RDF area is somewhat pre-market, and that's fine. But I continue to maintain that we should not put anything into the specs that hasn't been already to some extend deployed and tried in the “real” world by “normal” people.

Here I'll point again to my submission to the RDF Next Steps workshop last year [1]. The first page-and-a-half are a statement of exactly these concerns, and I intend to continue to express my displeasure with anything that runs afoul of these boundary conditions.

Best,
Richard

[1] http://www.w3.org/2009/12/rdf-ws/papers/ws30

Received on Sunday, 6 March 2011 11:36:40 UTC