[foaf-protocols] Some basic questions prior to development ?

Story Henry henry.story at bblfish.net
Fri May 14 21:51:30 CEST 2010


On 14 May 2010, at 20:42, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

>> 
>>  
>>> Your not doing choices and options anymore?
>>>    
>> 
>> To the contrary I am defusing the fear that too much choice is a problem.
>> 
>>  
>>> Semantictweet, Identi.ca, URIBurner, others, just options for people to choose from etc..
>>> 
>>> Remember, Identi.ca is just one of a plethora of data spaces on the public Web :-)
>>>    
>> 
>> Just saying that pragmatics will deal with this....
>>  
> 
> Henry,
> 
> I was referring to this statement: "...Indenti.ca produces its own foaf so there is no need for semantictweet."

Well, put it this way: it costs money to put something like semantictweet up, to maintain it, to make sure it does not get attacked, etc... Doing this was useful to help make a point about twitter I suppose, but would have been a lot less interesting if twitter had done, as identi.ca has done it themselves. In this sense there is certainly less need for a semantictweet for identica. 

I did not say people can't do it, or that it should be stopped. 

> 
> I am trying to articulate the fact that Identi.ca's FOAF graph for their Data Space may not meet all needs of a give profile of user agent.

In that case there would be a need.

> This is reminiscent of the flawed assumption that because Oracle (or any other RDBMS vendor) produces an ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET etc. driver/provider, 3rd party alternatives are no good :-)

There is less of a need then. Of course only those that produce better ones survive: because that solves a need.

I am just underlining the economic angle in this.

Henry

> 
> Kingsley



More information about the foaf-protocols mailing list