Comments on: This was not on the map! http://dowhatimean.net/2006/03/this-was-not-on-the-map Richard Cyganiak's Weblog Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:02:17 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: Richard Cyganiak http://dowhatimean.net/2006/03/this-was-not-on-the-map#comment-5873 Richard Cyganiak Sun, 26 Mar 2006 01:54:05 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/03/this-was-not-on-the-map#comment-5873 <p>Internet Casino, most loyal of my readers! He doesn’t fail to comment on any of my posts and always has an interesting link to share.</p> <p>Danny, what makes you think that “many eyeballs” is inappropriate for extending technology into new areas? Build on what’s already there, try a hundred different ideas (90 of which suck, but a few may be brilliant), and the “marketplace” will (more or less speedily) weed out the bad ones. Then the next generation of ideas will build on that.</p> <p>Prior exploration through academia and standards bodies doesn’t necessarily mean that any practical, workable solutions have been discovered yet.</p> <p>I’ve been told that standards bodies should document best practice. If they do original research, the resulting specs tend to suck. I agree with that view to some extent.</p> <p>And about the other guys being more public, you may be right, maybe it’s just my perception because the hard decisions about RDF were made before I was watching ;-) So I’ll not push that point.</p> Internet Casino, most loyal of my readers! He doesn’t fail to comment on any of my posts and always has an interesting link to share.

Danny, what makes you think that “many eyeballs” is inappropriate for extending technology into new areas? Build on what’s already there, try a hundred different ideas (90 of which suck, but a few may be brilliant), and the “marketplace” will (more or less speedily) weed out the bad ones. Then the next generation of ideas will build on that.

Prior exploration through academia and standards bodies doesn’t necessarily mean that any practical, workable solutions have been discovered yet.

I’ve been told that standards bodies should document best practice. If they do original research, the resulting specs tend to suck. I agree with that view to some extent.

And about the other guys being more public, you may be right, maybe it’s just my perception because the hard decisions about RDF were made before I was watching ;-) So I’ll not push that point.

]]> By: Danny http://dowhatimean.net/2006/03/this-was-not-on-the-map#comment-5871 Danny Sat, 25 Mar 2006 23:23:21 +0000 http://dowhatimean.net/2006/03/this-was-not-on-the-map#comment-5871 <p>Good point about it not being easy/possible to back up from a standard. </p> <p>But I’m still not convinced by the “many eyeballs” argument. Ok, a wider community is certainly an advantage for identifying problems and suggesting workarounds and fixes. But for extending into areas they don’t cover already? Areas many of which have already been explored through other mechanisms (academia, standards bodies)..?</p> <p>Nor am I convinced of the extent to which ‘the “naive” types explore and fight and mess up and learn in public’. However I do agree that is the best place for such activities. </p> <p>Oh, and what Internet Casino said ;-)</p> Good point about it not being easy/possible to back up from a standard.

But I’m still not convinced by the “many eyeballs” argument. Ok, a wider community is certainly an advantage for identifying problems and suggesting workarounds and fixes. But for extending into areas they don’t cover already? Areas many of which have already been explored through other mechanisms (academia, standards bodies)..?

Nor am I convinced of the extent to which ‘the “naive” types explore and fight and mess up and learn in public’. However I do agree that is the best place for such activities.

Oh, and what Internet Casino said ;-)

]]>