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

Re: Wiki-based vocabulary website idea

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 10:59:58 -0400
Message-ID: <4A12C96E.90802@openlinksw.com>
To: "Mike Lang Jr." <mikelangjr@revelytix.com>
CC: RDFa TF list <public-rdf-in-xhtml-tf@w3.org>, Public RDFa <public-rdfa@w3.org>
Mike Lang Jr. wrote:
> Lee,
> Thanks for bringing me in on this thread.  Glad to see that Knoodl 
> "may be the greatest thing since sliced bread"!  Sorry in advance for 
> the long winded reply, but these issues have been of interest to me 
> for a while and I would like to know if my views are way off base. 
>  Also, I wrote this before I saw Manu's reply, I'll write another 
> reply specifically about Knoodl.
> I am curious as to what exactly the consensus definitions on the terms 
> "commercial", "proprietary", and "open-source" are.  In my 
> mind, commercial implies that a company owns the code.  They are free 
> to do what they want with that code.  A commercial license does not 
> necessarily imply anything about the price for buying or using a piece 
> of software.  There are many different kinds of commercial software 
> licenses, the one thing they have in common is that they all give 
> ownership of the code to a commercial entity.
> There are also a multitude of different open-source licenses 
> available.  Having an open-source license does not necessarily imply 
> that no one owns the code.  Even in its most restrictive forms though, 
> an open-source license does guarantee that anyone can see the code. 
>  Open-source also does not necessarily imply that the software is 
> free.  Lots of open-source software is sold everyday.  So, as far as I 
> can tell, the only clear distinction between all types of open-source 
> licenses and all types of commercial licenses, is that anyone can see 
> the code for an open-source product.
> Proprietary, on the other hand, has nothing to do with ownership of or 
> access to the code.  It simply means that the software has been 
> implemented without using open standards.
> Anyway, I am not an expert in this area.  Please let me know if I have 
> misstated anything or if anyone disagrees heavily with anything I've 
> claimed.

The most important thing is support of industry standards.

Source Code that negates or fails to adhere to industry standards serves 
little or no purpose long term.

The Internet is about standards. The Web is about standards.  The Open 
Source stuff is an inadvertent distraction.

Code drives applications, and in my world view: Application Code is like 
Fish, hence my focus on Open Access to Data, since Data is like Wine :-)

Open Standards for protocols and data access are the heart and soul of 
the matter. If adhered to, we don't get artificial "lock-in" at any level.

> Mike
> Revelytix, Inc.
> phone: 410-584-0009 (office)
>           443-928-3782 (cell)
> skype: michael.allen.lang.jr
> aim: MikeJrRevelytix
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 6:48 AM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de 
> <mailto:richard@cyganiak.de>> wrote:
>     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



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 15:00:34 UTC

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