Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
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.
+1 to that sentiment expressed.
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.
We should be open, and in an unadulterated way. Swapping one mono
culture for another solves nothing longterm.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
