On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: >>>>> I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely >>>>> idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies. >>>> >>>> We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread you will say >>>> what *will* be useful for evaluating web technologies. >>> >>> Adoption trends, ergonomics, fit with the existing technology ecosystem, >>> existence of migration paths, marketability, potential of network effects. >>> >> >> Does what the technology *accomplishes* fit in there somewhere? > > Web technologies are never about accomplishing anything new; they are about > taking something that already works on a small and local scale, and making it > work across the internet with its loosely coordinated actors. > >> Looking at the above, one might conclude that a successful Ponzi scheme of >> some sort would score well. > > :-) > > If you want to look at it that way, standards, like anything that exhibits > network effects, are a bit like a ponzi scheme: once you're inside, you > benefit from getting others in your vicinity on board. The difference is that > “late adopters” in a ponzi scheme are the suckers who lose their investment; > while late adopters of a standard get the largest benefit at the smallest > cost.
LOL Pat ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes