[foaf-protocols] Some basic questions prior to development ?
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....
> 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.
More information about the foaf-protocols