W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2007

On Defensiveness (was Re: RDF: XULing or Grueling)

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 01:07:02 +0100
Message-Id: <5821852F-BB7D-4FD1-8857-56C6D8CA0AE5@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: 'Semantic Web' <semantic-web@w3.org>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>

I'm splitting this into two replies because I think it's good to  
separate out these issues.

On Oct 6, 2007, at 12:01 PM, Harry Halpin wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> The linked data stuff seems harmless in that afaict it doesn't hork
>> anyone off and seems sorta neat (though I've personally not read a  
>> lot
>> of excitement about it from outside our community; pointers are  
>> welcome).
> I mean, one could probably say the same thing for OWL 1.1 if one  
> wasn't
> deeply involved in the effort :) Let's try to keep positive here...

First, it's really hard to see how I could have been *more* positive.  
I worked hard in this post and in particular in this section to *not*  
be unduely harsh. I am very clear that it is *me*, who at the start  
of the post set himself up as perhaps not being fully engaged and  
seeking to be brought back up to speed, who have not read about the  
excitement. I *am* reading the criticisms that prompted the post.

So the only point of this comment is that I cannot say ANYTHING that  
might *remotely* be construed by *ANYONE* as critical of the vast  
success of the linked data movement. Frankly, that pisses me off.  
(Note, everyone else has been supportive about my call to reflect  
critically. Thank you all.)

Second, this is a sheer *tu quoque* argument. Let me start out by  
*embracing* the thing one could probably say. It's not just that you  
can *problably* say it, you *can* say it! It's *true*! So what? What  
does that have to do with being worried about the fallout of past RDF  
showcases failing hard? I'm *glad* OWL 1.1 isn't generating a lot of  
excitement outside the community, and don't mind if it doesn't  
generate a lot of excitement within it. I think it's necessary for  
some times and helpful for others and probably will be overall worth  
the investment. But, fortunately, OWL doesn't seem to have these time  
bombs. It has different marketing problems.

I would have hoped, Harry, that you wouldn't stoop to such fallacies.

I tend to market RDF and OWL in very specific ways and, I think, have  
been reasonably successful on both fronts in a lot of cases. However,  
in both cases I try to be *very* clear when they are *not* a good  
fit, in my opinion. Or even where they'd work, and work well, but  
might not work well enough *better* than an existing system to be  
worth the transition costs.

Received on Monday, 8 October 2007 00:07:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:03 UTC