Convincing ordinary people

Hi Everyone

I've been watching conversations here for a long time (as some of you know -
hi again!) and wondered whether it would be a good time to open one of those
"big" questions...

A few years ago I used to be very interested in Topic Maps - and went on the
really nice Ontopia course. Then, trying to read the signs, I got more
interested in Semantic Web stuff, particularly RDFa. I've been following the
recent stuff on RDFa developments, and also some of the
schema.orgdiscussions on several fronts.

I also have first-hand experience of trying to explain SW-like ideas to
colleagues who share projects. It's hard, even with many talented and
intelligent colleagues. Perhaps we all share something of this experience:
we have got our heads round "it" (whatever it is), and understandably we are
very enthusiastic - evangelistic even! - about the possibilities. But why
don't the others understand? Why don't they get it? I originally thought
that TM should be easier to grasp than RDF, but I don't think that any more,
I think they are much more in a similar position than a different one.

Maybe TM, as it currently is, is more than necessarily difficult, but that
is unfortunately shared by RDFa, and hence the emergence of the attempt to
"simplify" with microdata and schema.org.

Now don't get me wrong here. I think I have a pretty reasonable
understanding of TM, RDFa, etc. etc. and I appreciate at least some of their
really useful capabilities. But do we need, not quite simply a "lite"
version of them, but a better way in? I think it's worth asking here on the
TM list, because (as I said) I used to hold the view (and still do to some
extent) that, looked at in the best light, TM is a bit closer to the way
people think than just triples. So maybe some others here might be able to
relate to this as an educational undertaking...

Just how can we establish an easier pathway for more ordinary people? Could
we set up staging posts - subsets of the technology, with simplifying
assumptions, that actually work, that really do things, and are genuinely
easier to comprehend, while still leaving open the way forward to the "full
strength" versions of the technologies (and concepts)? And if we can
envisage such a pathway, what about the real demands it makes on people? Do
we need to factor in some personal development along the way? What would
that be? Can we assess whether a person is "ready" to grasp the concepts at
any particular level? What might the developmental steps be?

I do think this is really important, because at some point, because of the
ongoing democratisation of knowledge generally, the success of a technology
like TM will be more and more dependent, not on whether a small bunch of
people can get their heads round it (that can be said of many arcane
concepts and technologies) but whether it wins in the race for mass appeal.
To restate the main point, not immediate appeal (it doesn't) but as the
staged outcomes of a structured educational/developmental process; and not a
single week's course (though nothing "wrong" with Ontopia's past approach)
but as a series of steps, each of which is motivating in that it gives
people some useful outcome, so can be spread out, giving people enough time
to adapt their ways of thinking along the journey.

Maybe that's the challenge. If we want adoption of the technology, we need
people to understand it, but understanding it takes actual change in the way
people think, and that takes ... time!

I hope this makes sense and is helpful. I'd like to work with others to
think though what might be involved.

Best wishes

Simon
-- 
Simon Grant
+44 7710031657
http://www.simongrant.org/home.html

_______________________________________________
topicmapmail mailing list
topicmapmail-Zo64W7twoUFWk0Htik3J/[email protected]
http://www.infoloom.com/mailman/listinfo/topicmapmail