- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2012 14:38:07 -0500
- To: Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
- CC: public-xg-webid@w3.org, "public-rww@w3.org" <public-rww@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <5096C41F.3080809@openlinksw.com>
On 11/4/12 2:27 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote: > > You don't. You are trying to convince yourself of something that's > an utter fallacy. The definition of WebID being pushed isn't in > anyway close to AWWW in spirit or essence. It's utterly alien. > > > I appreciate these are good points. Maybe we should have "strong > webids" and "weak webids", i dont know. Personally, I dont mind what > the naming is so long as I can use it to do what I need. But I can > see that others may have stronger views. It's up to the WebID CG to > come to a consensus. Why? I don't like politically motivated cognitive dissonance. The attempt to redefine, name, or re-brand WebID is a classic example of politically motivated cognitive dissonance. Just understand, we are at a watershed moment, WebID is going to continue to build traction or it's going to stall and then die. Of this I am 100% certain. As much as I hate to say this, there are no circumstances under which I (or OpenLink Software) will be associated with the current WebID defintion. And I don't care how many people signup up to the broken definition, for the utter long reasons. It will be dead to us, if this is the way forward. -- 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
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2012 19:38:30 UTC