On 15 Apr 2011, at 01:02, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 4/14/11 6:42 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >> On 14 Apr 2011, at 21:35, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> >>> On 4/14/11 4:11 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >>>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 20:11, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 4/14/11 2:55 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >>>>>> On 14 Apr 2011, at 12:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 4/14/11 7:10 AM, Hugh Glaser wrote: >>>>>>>> Hi Kingsley, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 12 Apr 2011, at 22:33, Kingsley Idehen wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 4/12/11 4:33 PM, David. Huynh wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> I, as well as others I know, find the culture that has developed >>>>>>>>>>> on this list of responses saying "Well this is how I do it" >>>>>>>>>>> alienating, and thus sometimes a barrier to posting and genuine >>>>>>>>>>> responses, and so actually stifles discussion. >>>>>>>>> David/Hugh, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I get the point, but don't know the comment target, so I'll respond >>>>>>>>> with regards to myself as one participant in today's extensive debate >>>>>>>>> with Glenn. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope I haven't said or inferred "this is how we/I do it" without >>>>>>>>> providing at the very least a link to what I am talking about etc? >>>>>>>> I think that is true. >>>>>>>> But that is exactly the issue I was raising. >>>>>>>> As I said, I don't think this is usually the best way to respond to a >>>>>>>> post. >>>>>>> Hugh, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I am a little confused. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem is providing a link to accentuate a point or not doing so? >>>>>>> Put differently you are talking about more text and fewer links or more >>>>>>> links and fewer text? >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> Essentially different text and no links. >>>>> Hugh, >>>>> >>>>> In this thread lies a simple example. If you gave me a link to the thread >>>>> in question I am just a click away from truly comprehending your point. >>>>> This forum is about Linked Data, right ? :-) >>>>> >>>>> Please (seriously now) give me a link that exemplifies your point. >>>>> Context is inherently subjective, public forums accentuate this reality. >>>>> >>>>> FWIW -- I prefer to show rather than tell, I am also an instinctive >>>>> dog-fooder so I link. The power of hyperlinks (links) continue to exceed >>>>> my personal imagination. The productively gains that I enjoy courtesy of >>>>> links is something I still can't quite quantify. That's why I haven't >>>>> made a movie, post, or presentation (yet) with regards to the utter power >>>>> of links. >>>>> >>>>> I await your link, I do want to be much clearer about your point. >>>>> >>>>> Kingsley >>>> Thanks for asking, Kingsley. >>>> Yes, I don't really want to just repeat the posting. >>>> So I looked at the latest thread on this list: "15 Ways to Think About >>>> Data Quality (Just for a Start)", to try to illustrate what I mean. >>>> Briefly: >>>> It started with a message with a proposal to try to quantify quality. >>>> It was followed by 4 people who seemed very interested and engaged, and >>>> who began to discuss the details. >>>> But that was quickly followed by a transition to an interaction that >>>> centred around discussing your demos, numbering more than 30 messages. >>> But you are overlooking the opening paragraph of the post. >>> >>> You are overlooking the history of the post, including the fact that I >>> asked Glenn to make the post. >>> >>> I asked Glenn to make the post because we've had a reoccurring debate, and >>> I've always suspected a fundamental disconnect. >>> >>> If you could, please juxtapose the start with the final post. >>> >>>> In my opinion, after the initial phase, the discussion then made little >>>> progress towards what might have resulted in an interesting consensus with >>>> a number of people contributing. >>>> An opportunity lost. >>> How can it be a lost opportunity? The conversation is threaded. And if for >>> whatever reasons the conversation is deemed linear to you, what stops you >>> opening a new thread with a tweak to the opening paragraph which had a >>> direct reference to opinions I expressed about the inherent subjectivity of >>> data quality, courtesy of context fluidity. Start a new thread, don't make >>> a reference to me, and my silence will be utterly deafening, no joke. >>> >>> As for the links, the purpose (as per usual with me) was to back up my >>> point with live linked data. Basically, if I believe data quality >>> subjectivity is a function of context fluidity, why not show the very point >>> via a Linked Data page that accentuates the loose coupling of information >>> and data that's vital to addressing the conundrum in question? >>> >>> Kingsley >> Hi, >> I am looking at the process and outcomes I observe, rather than delving into >> the details. >> It is not about whether people could have acted differently - it is about >> how people actually did act. >> A lost opportunity? Clearly there were a number of people who had opinions, >> and seemed ready to engage in a discussion. I would have been interested to >> hear what they had to say. But the social dynamics (in my opinion) were such >> that they no longer chose to contribute. >> In answer to your last question: Because the discussion then becomes about >> the page, rather than principle, or even original topic; but I begin to >> repeat myself. > > Hugh, > > I don't understand your point; certainly not in a way that I would like to > discuss any further in this public space. Thus, we can discuss further > (offline) if you choose. > > Kingsley > >
Hi Kingsley, I guess it is best if we consider this a natural conclusion then. Thank you for trying. Very best Hugh
