W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdfa@w3.org > May 2009

Re: Wiki-based vocabulary website idea

From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:48:17 +0100
Cc: Manu Sporny <msporny@digitalbazaar.com>, RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Public RDFa <public-rdfa@w3.org>, mikelangjr@revelytix.com
Message-Id: <188B3AC8-C450-4C2B-9D3E-5BCD1EB95E97@cyganiak.de>
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>

On 19 May 2009, at 04:01, Lee Feigenbaum wrote:

> Manu Sporny wrote:
> > http://rdfa.info/wiki/wiki-based-vocabulary-website#State_of_the_Art
> >
>> Looking for more feedback...
>
> [[ CCing Mike Lang Jr, who might have a thought to add here ]]
>
> The entry on Knoodl states:
>
> """
> Proprietary mechanisms should not be used to support core web  
> infrastructure.
> """
>
> I wonder if this is a widely held view / consensus in the RDFa  
> community?

I don't think so. I also think that Manu's comment is inappropriate. I  
agree with the point of view that core web infrastructure should be  
run on open-source software that is as free as possible from  
commercial interests. But a wiki-based vocabulary website is not core  
web infrastructure. I do not see why we should discourage commercial  
vendors from implementing the various open standards that make up the  
Web. Users can vote with their feet. If Manu, for whatever reason,  
does not want to use commercial software, then he's free to do so, but  
it's his personal opinion only and this should *not* be taken as an  
opinion that is widely shared throughout the community.

Best,
Richard



>
>
> I often talk to people relatively unfamiliar with the Semantic Web  
> landscape and praise what I consider a fairly healthy mix of  
> commercial, free-but-proprietary, and open-source solutions. I'm  
> (personally) a bit dismayed that free-but-proprietary (or even, for  
> that matter, commercial) solutions would be written off a priori by  
> core advocates of the advancement of a Semantic Web vision. I worry  
> also that an a priori refusal to consider commercial or free-but- 
> proprietary for community efforts will encourage somewhat of a  
> (wider?) schism in the overall direction of Semantic Web vendors and  
> (for lack of a better term) Semantic Web community projects, and I  
> don't really think that benefits anyone.
>
> I'd much prefer that commercial or proprietary systems be considered  
> along with free or open systems on their merits. Of course, cost may  
> be a con to some commercial approaches (but consider inherent costs  
> involved with even open approaches to hosting domains, e.g.), as may  
> restrictive terms of service or reliability of service -- but it's a  
> far different thing to write off something with the potential of  
> Knoodl for such grand reasons as the one quoted above.
>
> Lee
>
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 10:49:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:43 UTC