Yet anger will not be enough to get us through what is sure to be a long struggle. For that we will need answers.
I think most of the people that created and promote them are swell and I like them a lot, save for a few misguided souls, who are loveable and consistently wrong. This is after exactly teleconferences typically lasting an hour and a half, fully transparent with text minutes and recorded audio for every call.
The journey was a fairly smooth one with only a few jarring bumps along the road. Decrypt the Cryptic Many W3C specifications are so cryptic that they require the sacrifice of your sanity and a secret W3C decoder ring to read.
I never understood why these documents were so difficult to read, and after years of study on the matter, I think I found the answer.
It turns out that most specification editors are just crap at writing. This approach is often defended by raising the point that readability of the specification by non-implementers is viewed as secondary to its technical accuracy for implementers.
The audience is the implementer, and you are expected to cater to them. To counter that point, though, we all know that technical accuracy is a bad excuse for crap writing.
You can write something that is easy to understand and technically accurate, it just takes more effort to do that. Knowing your audience helps. It starts at basics, assuming that the audience is a web developer with modest training, and builds its way up slowly into more advanced topics.
Reading sections of the specification that have undergone feedback from more nitpicky readers still make me cringe because ease of understanding has been sacrificed at the alter of pedantic technical accuracy. There are not many specifications where you can do that.
Radical Transparency One of the things that has always bothered me about W3C Working Groups is that you have to either be an expert to participate, or you have to be a member of the W3C, which can cost a non-trivial amount of money.
This results in your typical web developer being able to comment on a specification, but not really having the ability to influence a Working Group decision with a vote.
It also hobbles the standards-making community because the barrier to entry is perceived as impossibly high. The W3C is a consortium of mostly for-profit companies and they have things they care about like market share, quarterly profits, and drowning goats kidding!
My point is that because there is a lack of transparency at times, it makes even the best Working Group less responsive to the general public, and that harms the public good. These closed door rules are there so that large companies can say certain things without triggering a lawsuit, which is sometimes used for good but typically results in companies being jerks and nobody finding out about it.
So, in we kicked off the JSON-LD work by making it radically open and we fought for that openness every step of the way. Anyone can join the group, anyone can vote on decisions, anyone can join the teleconferences, there are no closed door sessions, and we record the audio of every meeting.
We successfully kept the technical work on the specification this open from the beginning to the release of JSON-LD 1. Blank nodes are an abomination that we need, but they are applied inconsistently in the RDF data model you can use them in some places, but not others.
Your standard web developer has no interest in that toolchain because it adds more complexity to the solution than is necessary. I remember the discussions getting very heated over multiple months, and at times, thinking that the worst thing we could do to JSON-LD was to hand it over to the RDF Working Group for standardization.
I trusted Dave Wood, though. I had never seen him get religiously zealous about RDF like some of the others in the group and he seemed to be convinced that we could get JSON-LD through without ruining it.
For example, many of the participants can be humble about their knowledge so they tend to think that a good chunk of the people that will be using their technology will be just as enlightened. Bad feature ideas can be argued for months and rationalized because smart people, lacking any sort of compelling real world data, are great at debating and rationalizing bad decisions.
Everyone wants to see this stuff succeed and we all have our reasons and approaches. I hate the narrative of the Semantic Web because the focus has been on the wrong set of things for a long time. That community, who I have been consciously distancing myself from for a few years now, is schizophrenic in its direction.
Precious time is spent in groups discussing how we can query all this Big Data that is sure to be published via RDF instead of figuring out a way of making it easy to publish that data on the Web by leveraging common practices in use today.
It helps people solve interesting distributed problems without buying into any grand vision. At some point you have to deal with reality, and that reality is that there are just as many things that the RDF and Semantic Web initiative got right as it got wrong.Opinions will vary on this one, no doubt.
Fortunately, this is my column, so mine is the only one that matters here. The world is very clear on its feelings toward black people, but the question I pose is why? Hatred or hate is a human pfmlures.com could invoke feelings of animosity, anger or resentment, which can be directed against certain individuals, groups, entities, objects, behaviors, concepts, or ideas..
Hatred is often associated with feelings of anger, disgust and a disposition towards the source of hostility. Why Muslims hate Zakir Naik so much? Dr Zakir Naik’s fraud exposed In defence of Halal meat Zakir Naik – the mentor of terrorists Science and IRF Zakir Bhai MBBS aka Dr Zakir Naik has been among the most hated public figures of today.
Deoband recently issued a fatwa against him. There is no. Five Reasons Why People Think They Hate Science (and what to do about it!) December 20th, Now, I don’t expect everyone to love everything that I love, but I do know that everyone loves the results of science even if they don’t readily acknowledge it.
If students still hate history classes I suspect the textbooks may have something to do with it. Standard textbooks likely avoid anything remotely close to salacious, controversial or potentially offensive, which means they sidestep much of what actually takes place during the course of history.
All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.