3 ms·
You're talking about some kind of neoliberal openness, where open means "the big players agreed to it and it conforms to political ideas about structure". That
by erikpukinskis 10y ago
You're talking about some kind of neoliberal openness, where open means "the big players agreed to it and it conforms to political ideas about structure".
That's not my definition of open. My definition open is you can access the spec for free without limitation, and use, modify, and redistribute it as you see fit.
If I am feeling grandiose I will concede that openness requires not just access, but easy access and usability by all stakeholders. That's a little radical, but the point is just that there's a degree of accessibility implied in the above. If you have to crawl through a snake pit to get the source perhaps that's not really open.
But your definition, which requires buy-in from Oracle and PepsiCo in order to be "open"... I think I reject that definition.
- matt4077 10y agoHaving a hard time parsing your objections. The standard is http://json-ld.org http://json-ld.org plus https://schema.org https://schema.org. Client developers could freely implement it. It's a W3C standard. But don't modify it just because you can – standards don't like that. It's annoying that google doesn't activate it for everyone, but that's like complaining about browsers allowing adblockers or SSL root certificates being tied to requirements.
- huac 10y agoHow could you modify this schema and expect it to work with the other players?
- erikpukinskis 10y agoThe same way Google could modify the schema and expect it to work with old clients: graceful fallback.
- niftich 10y ago> where open means "the big players agreed to it and it conforms to political ideas about structure" That's not the 'open' part. That's the 'standard' part, where a broad consensus of all stakeholders is what ensures that it's not a mere thought experiment that lacks adoption.