On 6/18/11 1:24 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 18 Jun 2011, at 13:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/18/11 12:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/18/11 8:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
The recent discussions on this list were very much about how to avoid making
distinctions unless you have to (Just-In-Time Distinctions?) So why are the
above distinctions needed? Particularly with regard to this conversation.
A root of these conversations lie confusion that results from conflating a
variety of things. If we separate items into appropriate boxes we stand a
chance of clarity en route to success.
There are deep unresolved matters that will trigger threads likes these,
repeatedly. My conflation list is in my last post :-)
*At* the root of these conversations lie confusion that results from conflating
a variety of things. If we separate items into appropriate boxes we stand a
chance of clarity en route to success.
Every distinction comes at a cost. Say it takes 20 minutes to explain to
someone that where they saw As there are in fact A1s, A2s and A3s . Now say you
need to explain that to 1 billion people. That is 333 million hours of time
taken to explain that distinction.
Come on! Why no earth would I seek that? Is that what you gleaned from
my comments?
How did people learn "data access by reference" before the Web?
Basically, would there even be an Internet let alone a WWW if people
didn't find a way to grok these matters?
I am saying, one narrative doesn't cut it.
Inferring that RDF is the new solution to everything doesn't cut it.
Here is a break down that clarifies what I mean:
Web Information Space components:
1. URIs used to Name Resource Locations - use of URIs as Uniform
Resource Locators (Addreses)
2. Resources -- coarse grained structured data in formats such as HTML,
JPEG, PNG etc.. streamed from server to client via HTTP protocol
The above is about digital variation of real world publishing.
Data Space components:
1. URIs used to Name Anything
2. URIs Names may be generic or specific as in the case of Addresses
i.e., Resource Locators (URLs)
3. URIs Resolve to actual Resource Locations (Addresses)
4. Resources -- fined grained structured data via directed graph
pictorials comprised of triples (or 3-tuples) -- still streamed from
server to client but via Name -> Address indirection as per #3
5. Triples -- expressible in a variety of syntaxes that include RDF
family (RDF/XML, RDFa, Microdata, N-Triples, Turtle, N3, TriX etc..) and
many others.
Of course if there are 2 people, a teacher and a listener that is then 666
million hours taken to explain this at a cost to the economy of 7 billion
dollars (if we take the low salary of $10 an hour).
Lost me, I am a little more confident about the inherent intelligence of
all human beings. The variable that most overlook (IMHO) is attention.
Attention is a critical factor re. perceived human intelligence. This
fundamental misconception of human intelligence is something programmers
have become dangerously intoxicated with. This is why programs start to
fail when end-users become engaged i.e., that hit all the subject matter
/ domain edge cases and to the programmer they are now become super
intelligent in totally transcendant ways, basically a nightmare that
typically leads to solution implosion.
So the distinction would need to generate more value that that to be worth
growing. Now of course in a computerised world, the teaching part can be
automated, so that perhaps after covering engineering costs the whole cost to
the general economy is 4 billion dollars. If the distinction then helps make
the interactions between all those users more than 4 billion dollars more
efficient, especially if this is distributed around to each individual, then
the distinction has a chance of spreading that wide.
Now we're talking! You are describe value of the kind delivered by
solutions. Yes, delivering useful solutions that leverage new frontiers,
insights, or tweaks of what already exists == potent education
mechanism. Users will be engaged and competitors alerted re. opportunity
costs.
Er.. how about using URL when talking about addresses and data access?
Speaking about URI in generic sense is problem #1 when speaking outside
this community. Doing that is lazy, careless, and really unacceptable
IMHO. This particular tendency just drives people nuts.
So when people discuss if the distinction between a URI for an object and a URI
for a page is worth making, it really depends to whom.
We are introducing a new aspect of the URI abstraction, but assume the
audience groks the nuances. That saying a URL is a URI solves the
problem whereas it does the complete opposite. Discarding URI for URL
has the same effect, and is the biggest headache I see re.
communications since it always veers down the: a Car is not a Document path.
A URL conveys specific meaning, and has an established sense with Web
users and developers. Thus, why not build on that as part of the
narrative that explains the new Web dimension that puts the full URI
abstraction to use?
Initially it may not be worth trying to teach such a distinction to a very
large crowd.
Fatal mistake, hence the 12 year odyssey. IMHO
Many critical players grok the distinction, but for reasons unbeknown to
me we've decided they don't. They just don't understand W3C parlance. I
know this from serious field testing with various profiles (novice to
guru). W3C specs are written in a language that many programmers truly
do not grasp. Do you know how a typical (non Web or pre. Web) programmer
feels when they come to realize that Linked Data is all about exploiting
de-reference (indirection) and address-of operations via hyperlinks? I
am talking about folks that have developed serious applications solving
serious problems pre WWW explosion. These folks are the ones that can
easily deliver powerful Linked Data applications, with ease, if they
understand what its about. They'll build applications that trump those
built by developers discovering and learning the art of programming
while within the confines of a new slant on an old pattern.
If one can get their behaviour to be in tune with the distinction without them
needing to be immediately aware of it, one can save oneself a lot of money. It
is a question of knowing who needs to be tought what, and in what order.
In many cases, the teaching == translation by making connections between
new terminology and established terminology. Being provincial doesn't
make ones technology established. I laugh each time I am accused of
introducing new terminology when in fact I am actually using terminology
from realms and times pre WWW explosion. Or terminology outside of W3C
specs and WWW realm.
Human beings have managed to get very far on the back of mass ignorance of
most things. It is only with the developing technical civilisation that mass
literacy had to be brought into place at a huge cost to the state, for clearly
even greater benefit. The cost of thinking is great, but most people do learn
to use their head, as the advantages provided by it are dramatic. Most people
don't know how they think though. So they can think without knowing that much
about how they do it.
People need to be stimulated. That's all.
Steve Jobs figured that out, and Apple continues to take profitable
advantage of that.
So when creating an ontology one could try to design it in such a way that users of those relations
would not need many distinctions to get going. "Like" is a good example of something that
simple. It builds on the ability of humans to work out what the appropriate object of a
"like" is. When we get to computers reasoning in a low contextual space such as the web
we need tools such as those provided by the semantic web. Of all possible ontologies (all possible
distinctions) some are going to be more valuable to a larger crowd. Then there may be ways even
there of reducing the distinctions needed to teach such a crowd. Using DocumentObject ontologies
with relations that reduce the distinctions needed by a user of the ontology to get it right, might
if done right not reduce the inferential ability of the system that much whilst reducing the need
to teach many people some distinctions.
It may be that the subject worth developing is such a psychosocial economics of
ontology development, which takes the cost of distinctions into account.
Ultimately, it boils down to solutions and adaptable narratives. What we
can do is issue edicts about the evolution of the WWW. There is a nuance
laced evolution taking place re. the Web. The real Web 2.0 is the Data
Space dimension, it precedes the Knowledge Space dimension's broader and
clearer manifestation.
If we just understand that solutions stimulate end-users and that a
stimulated end-user is an engaged agent, our narratives will be more
flexible and ultimately more productive.
Nobody is going to win the: best Linked Data or Semantic Web definition
contest.
There are some who will score big re. best of class solutions for
exploiting prowess inherent in InterWeb scale Linked Data and the
inevitable InterWeb of Semantically Linked Data :-)
Excuse typos etc.. I type fast, kids yelling, I am also in transit with
family across southern UK :-) Off for another walk in quiet Devon!
Kingsley
Henry
There are deep unresolved matters that will trigger threads likes these,
repeatedly. My conflation list is in my last post :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
