On 03/03/2008, Phil Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Data Portability is promoting RDF.
>
> Amongst other formats, and for particular purposes, yes.
Right; DP is about only a few particular purposes, without the overall
principle (of building a semantic web)
> > What about all the data that isn't in the social graph?
>
> I was only quoting you. Perhaps we should amend your original statement.
Okay, I'll try again :-)
Will data portability get Web 2.0 companies to allow you to {im,ex}port
some minor aspects of data, like your social graph, from one silo to
the next, in W3C standards like RDF or other, less rigorous but currently
more popular ones? Or will it get hermetic Web 2.0 companies to
support the semantic web properly and stop being hermetic, by
allowing you to not just {im,ex}port, but query, delete, control the
visibility of, all your data?
"We're being spoon-fed baby food when we hunger for steak... the bits
of meat that slip
through are pre-chewed and tasteless." ;-)
Reading around DP criticism, I see
http://gigaom.com/2008/02/06/data-property-rights-not-portability/
which echoes my concerns.
> > Better to concentrate on the principles, because once a business
> > understands those, they won't have any problem with each area of
> > application of those principles, as they arise.
>
> In the same way that, for example, Mozilla have understood these principles?
Precisely - or are you under the illusion that Mozilla don't
distribute and promote proprietary software? Sadly, they have not
understood the principles of software freedom, which is why
http://gnuzilla.gnu.org is neccessary.
--
Regards,
Dave
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
