Manu Sporny wrote:
> http://rdfa.info/wiki/wiki-based-vocabulary-website#State_of_the_Art
>
Looking for more feedback...
[[ CCing Mike Lang Jr, who might have a thought to add here ]]
The entry on Knoodl states:
"""
Proprietary mechanisms should not be used to support core web
infrastructure.
"""
I wonder if this is a widely held view / consensus in the RDFa community?
I often talk to people relatively unfamiliar with the Semantic Web
landscape and praise what I consider a fairly healthy mix of commercial,
free-but-proprietary, and open-source solutions. I'm (personally) a bit
dismayed that free-but-proprietary (or even, for that matter,
commercial) solutions would be written off a priori by core advocates of
the advancement of a Semantic Web vision. I worry also that an a priori
refusal to consider commercial or free-but-proprietary for community
efforts will encourage somewhat of a (wider?) schism in the overall
direction of Semantic Web vendors and (for lack of a better term)
Semantic Web community projects, and I don't really think that benefits
anyone.
I'd much prefer that commercial or proprietary systems be considered
along with free or open systems on their merits. Of course, cost may be
a con to some commercial approaches (but consider inherent costs
involved with even open approaches to hosting domains, e.g.), as may
restrictive terms of service or reliability of service -- but it's a far
different thing to write off something with the potential of Knoodl for
such grand reasons as the one quoted above.
Lee
