On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 2:17 PM, Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com> wrote: > > The beauty of the Web (to me) is that it's architecture ultimately > allows everyone to "agree to disagree", without going to war.
Yes, achieving better ways to understand the agreements, the disagreements, and the technical failures is as good of a goal as any. > I think the Web will allow user agents coalesce around data spaces that over > value. Others will simply wither away over time. No set of draconian rules > will avert this reality because said reality is wired into the fabric of > scale-free networks such as the Web. I agree. I don't think one can demand more than that. We can hope to try to aid that (loose) process. > I believe Data Wikis will go long way to crowd sourcing data reconciliation. > Of course, for that to happen you need access control lists (ACLs) and > verifiable identity, which is why the WebID protocol (an application of > Linked Data) is so important to this whole topic of subjective data quality. I am not familiar with that, but I'll look at it. Off the cuff, I have doubts an ACLs are appropriate for the web, where the nature of URLs seems to have a built-in affinity to a capability-based access control. > If the logic is already making its way into the data, why not make > conversations about data reconciliation part of the data too? Wikipedia > sorta, works, but Data Wikis will take this matter to much greater heights. > We'll never be able to compute "Why" from "Who", "What", "Where", and "When" > data with 100% precision. Adding reconciliatory conversations into the data > via Data Wikis will get us much closer than we are today. I think I am with you. -Patrick