Re: Banging the identity drum again, this time REST-style

On 22 Nov 2010, at 10:59 PM, Lars Heuer wrote:
> 
> [...]
>> I'll have to actually READ the RFC
> 
> Progress ;)

Actually, this kind proves my point, but only through my own laziness.  My point was, of people who read the original post on Martin Fowler's blog (or who will buy the book discussed when it's finished), probably about 10% of them will even know what an RFC is and 1% of those will actually bother to read it.  Of that, probably less than 1% of those will actually take the time to actually give it enough brain power to understand the boundaries, strengths and weaknesses of where it should be applied.

I'm not talking about that 1% of 1% of 10% of the people writing software.

I'm talking about the 70-80% of the other types of developers out there.  There are a lot of smart people I've worked with over the years that think I'm crazy for actually reading the HTTP specification, FFS!  Yet, they're the ones writing the bulk of the software that runs/controls our lives.

Actually, *we're* the freaks, not them.... (so it is just like High School after all.... ;)

>> and have a think to respond
>> properly, but I think you inverted the problem.  I was talking about
>> what Topic Maps could bring to the RFC (based on reading the intro
>> and assuming that it is the basis of the link I referenced inside the snark tag).
> 
> Call me pessimistic, but we *have* a Link RFC. You may know that, but
> an RFC is a standard. You may call the editor and mention that this
> and that is suboptimal. You can may even call me (if you'd know my
> mobile cell no) and tell me that CTM sucks and I'd tell you "The train
> has left the station" (maybe I'd ask some questions about Bob the
> Builder, though ;) ).

Yes, we have an RFC, but the last time I checked, the latest RFCs have pretty big numbers--meaning that there's a lot of them that've been superseded by other RFCs.  I'm not talking about trying to shut the door after the horse has bolted.  I'm trying to head him off at the pass! :)

>> I think we need to help the world understand how Topic Maps can
>> help in these situations rather than implementing
>> yet-another-directory or yet-another-identity-mechanism.  If you
>> need one, fine, but at least be able to express it in terms of
>> things that exist so people can understand why it's relevant and necessary.
> 
> Maybe Topic Maps (TMRM more than TMDM) is necessary, but we don't have
> a big PR department. Topic Maps never had and we lost the game, I'd
> think. We can offer mappings, though. Topic Maps isn't bad and I think
> mappings to Topic Maps offer some possibilities aside from portals.

Dude, *we're* the PR department!  And that's both a blessing and a curse.  Giving up and getting on with our own thing (which, to be fair has been the SOP of the community as a whole) isn't the right answer.

All I was actually was presenting in the original mail was a potential opportunity to remind people:

a) There's this thing called Topic Maps, and we think it's pretty cool for these reasons, and

b) we think this is how it might possibly be useful in making your life easier as the designers, architects and implementers of loosely-coupled information systems.

For my own part, I'm happy to expound to all and sundry what I think (you may have perhaps noticed this occasionally), and I'm going to get on solving the problems I want and need to solve based on the way I understand the world today.  However, I'm not sure that I'm happy playing clean up for everyone else confident in the knowledge that "of course, we can create an X -> Topic Maps mapping for that."

I'm sure you've had this feeling with the work you've mentioned doing on dbpedia dumps, but why should we have to do this.  Why are we, a very small community, trying to absorb the work of helping everyone else make sense of this information landfill we see and experience every day through the window of Google's search box?  Why can't we distribute this effort--just like the Web?

> RDF/LOD hasn't solved the problems of subject identifier vs. subject
> locator. And the current players of RDF/LOD don't understand that
> problem properly or deliver poor solutions. But who cares? I care and
> few people may care, but the current trend goes to "something
> has-relationship-to something-else". Take Atom, take ActivityStreams,
> take anything which is popular, it's all about triples. IRI
> reltionship-IRI IRI. That's enough. Well, you have to take care about
> statements like
> 
>   john father-of sean.
>   sean child-of john.
> 
> but who cares? It works.

Do they not care on purpose, or do they not care due to ignorance (in the most classical sensie of the definition)?  My guess is it's the latter, because, like many other domains, you've a bunch of people new to the space acting like kids in a candy store because they can now do things they never could before.  The just haven't hit all this shit yet, because they haven't been at it long enough.  Again, there I go with the sweeping generalizations, but I think it's true.

There's no problem because they haven't experienced the problem yet.  The stove isn't hot until you touch it and it hurts.  After that, you're not so quick to do that again.

Taking a page from current events, the current approach to world economics "just works" too, but then, well, now we have a problem or two.  Why wait until some conflagratory event to have the opportunity to stand back, cross our arms and go, "See?  Told ya."  I don't see how this is acceptable.

> Well, now I am far away of your "Link" header proposal and I should
> read your response to Patrick. :)

Link header?  I never mentioned a link header that I recall (at least not in the emails, I've no real idea everything I said in the linked emails.  That was a long time ago) :)

> That's the same discussion as "Prolog vs. <ANY-LANGUAGE-HERE>".
> Java/Python/Ruby is popular. Prolog is cool, but who cares? ;)

What I'm saying is that I think it's time to get past the "I'm great, and you're not" way of looking at this stuff.  The world's too small, and we don't have the time.  Sure, I've done it, and I have my opinions.  However, the reality is that we're in a heterogenous and diverse world and more of that diversity is going to reach out and smack us in the face every day.  We'd better be prepared for it and find a way to look past it and admit the validity of alternative approaches and concentrate where certain tools and approaches that already exist can make everyone's life easier and just a little nicer.

It's not about who's is best, it's about how we can collectively leverage what we've learned and start solving the bigger problems.

Now... go read the other emails! :)

Cheers,

ast
--
Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]>
http://atownley.org