Re: A proposal involving my original reason for commenting on httpRange-14

On 4/3/12 9:38 AM, Harry Halpin wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Ed Summers<ehs@pobox.com>  wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Nathan<nathan@webr3.org>  wrote:
>>> What does http://graph.facebook.com/117527568273199 identify?
>> I think the first few paragraphs of
>> https://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/api/ answer that
>> question pretty well.
>>
> And much clearer than Kingsley's post. I have to admit that the amount
> of jaron per minute in Kingsley's posts makes them hard to read. I'm
> not sure if this is due to terminological confusion in the community
> or just personal idiosyncrasies. Ditto most of the conversation around
> httpRange-14. I'd recommend speaking in a easy-to-understand ordinary
> language - *only* using technical terms when needed to make a
> distinction.

Why can we just discuss a matter. Debate it if need be without these 
kinds of comments? Do you genuinely think I have nothing better to do 
with my time?

What you call jargon is more than likely a reflection of your limited 
travels re. data access, data integration, and data management matters. 
What you call jargon is established parlance elsewhere.

Facebook are doing a little more that is clearly obvious to you. You 
have use deft middleware techniques to bridge two worlds, in a manner 
unobtrusive to both their infrastructure and fundamental business model. 
That's how its done in the commercial world.

>
> On a larger note, the Linked Data community could do a lot better by
> paving the cowpaths here of Facebook (and also looking at APIs from
> Google's Freebase) rather than going off into
> design-by-commitee/academic paper-writing mode. However, I agree that
> Linked Data is a particular "language game" invented by TimBL and so
> we should ask TimBL for his opinion on "loosening" the rules of the
> game a bit.

Does Facebook need rules loosening? Of course not, they done their bit. 
The rest of the job is for those of us that see value in additional 
Linked Data fidelity.

Facebook has shown (if you look close enough) how Linked Data should be 
bootstrapped. What they've done will eventually force Google's hand 
since the net effect is making ultimately about opportunity costs that 
will become increasing palpable to Google. None of this is magic, this 
is how competition works amongst market leaders.
> My fear is that the W3C-branded Linked Data might, if over-constrained
> to RDF/XML+303+conneg, end up basically being overtaken by industry
> here, just as SGML was overtaken by XML. That's my only point, mundane
> engineering, not philosophy believe it or not.

It isn't about philosophy. It good old computer science and industry 
dynamics. Making statements about objects is as old as the computer 
industry. Doing so via *intensional* data definition is very old. What's 
new is the expanse and ubiquity of the World Wide Web.

>   Although my
> philosophical position is that we should give people flexibility and
> not force a priori categorization of the world besides the minimal
> needed for successful communication (co-ordination of collective
> action).

Trouble is that you somehow believe that others (e.g., myself) don't 
seek the very same thing. If the Semantic Web and HttRange-14 wasn't 
littered with narratives that are genealogically weak, do you think we 
would be burning all of this time on what history with ultimately 
reflect as one of the greatest demonstrations of the negative effects of 
NIH (not invented here).

>
>
>> //Ed
>>
>


-- 

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