- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2011 07:50:54 +0100
- To: public-xg-webid@w3.org
On 7/19/11 3:56 AM, Ben Adida wrote: > Right, the difference is that we're trying to start with the simplest > layer, you're trying to build the distributed social network up front. Ben, Come on now. So solution is to make a parallel system when you can bridge from the so called "simplest" to the so called "more complex". I am not buying your argument at all, sorry. The AWWW is "deceptively simple" i.e., its value realm is shaped like a conventional pyramid, the more you challenge it the more pleasant surprises due to architectural dexterity. Sadly, since the Web 2.0 era we have a penchant for pushing "simply simple" solutions. These solutions basically take the form of inverted pyramids and lack architectural dexterity, and thus doesn't scale, and just burn people's time when they hit the inevitable exploitation cul-de-sacs. You are making a Web 2.0 style argument, but you don't seem to realize that Web 2.0 isn't actually working at all. It doesn't save us time or make us more productive. It doesn't truly deliver on the power of AWWW etc.. Its actually a distraction, to put things bluntly. Also note, I don't regard VC inflated valuations and market capitalization as success indicators when talking about good technology architecture that serves a much bigger purpose as already exemplified by the WWW deliverable. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Tuesday, 19 July 2011 06:51:31 UTC