11.05.07

Semantic Web triumphs with another panel discussion

Posted in Uncategorized at 10:03 am by David Kellogg

People say the Semantic Web produces nothing. I counter that it produces many useful panel discussions to entertain many MIT graduates.

Panel discussions in the web world are omni-important in producing great technology. Terry Chay has a rundown of our Web Version History. For those too lazy to click, here they are.

release_notes

Notes:

Web 4.0. Potato Farming
The semantic web will relay all human knowledge between computers, leaving you and me and all of California with nothing to do but eat at McDonald’s. The resulting need for ginormous fries will lead the best and brightest into Potato Farming.
Web 5.0. The Singularity. After The Singularity the Machine is Us.
Web 6.0. ????. The whole of humanity, having been downloaded to the computer, gets caught in a honeypot.
Web 7.0. Profit!

Panel discussions predate all leaps in electronic technology. Here are a few examples.

1945 Trinity detonation — Panel discussion
1947 Bardeen and Brattain transistor — Panel discussion
1962 Nick Holonyak LED — Panel discussion
2007 Facebook Apps — Panel discussion

As you can see, all great technology comes from like-minded individuals discussing current topics to move science forward. Innovation does not come from a small set of smart and creative individuals, but rather, from talking endlessly about the fine points of maxcardinality vs. mincardinality and encouraging others to do the same.

11.04.07

Sorry, OpenSocial is closed

Posted in Uncategorized at 12:06 am by David Kellogg

Terry Chay seems like he’s holding back with his criticism of OpenSocial. What can I add about a Google project that is neither open nor social?

First, the list of exclusions.
Yahoo was not invited because Google thought of it.
Tagged is missing because Plaxo was invited.
Facebook was excluded because Myspace was invited.
Ebay was excluded because Google wants to destroy Paypal.

We need a moratorium on non-open self-proclaimed open projects. If you see “Open” in CaMeLCaps, it’s not open, it’s just Web 2.0. The terms of service do not appear “open.”

Google’s version of open is that you are open, and they benefit. Google wanted access to Myspace’s users to complement tiny Orkut, and Myspace complied. Google’s terms of service reads like a closed document. It starts out

“you may use the API as part of a commercial or non-commercial enterprise.”

But then it gets out of hand.

“Google may, from time to time and at its sole and absolute discretion …”

That’s not open, and and in what way does it include Plaxo and the others?

In the end, OpenSocial is just Google’s releasing their broken, easily-hackable Orkut code to the non-embargoed companies.

With these terms of service, can I, can you, add to their API? I really doubt it.