> Tim, you're giving away my secrets!
>
> My previous message wasn't arguing against any "earned, open and
> optional centralization," but against the idea that such
> centralization would be necessary or desirable to accomplish our
> goals. Once you put those adjectives "earned, open and optional" in
> the mix, it's a different ball game.
>
> I guess I should have put it in Siva Vaidyanathan's terms of protocol
> versus control. We need good platforms for sharing data, but we need
> to be careful to make those platforms flexible and evolvable. And,
> most importantly, not subject to the control of any single entity, no
> matter how apparently benevolent.
All these points I concur with. We don't have an *opportunity* for exploring
centralized data, unless you count WorldCat, which you really can't because
OCLC controls it, and it is hardly "earned, open and optional."
I don't even like the word "centralized"-it's not quite right. Perhaps
"unforked."
K.G. Schneider
kgs_at_bluehighways.com
Received on Thu May 17 2007 - 07:42:17 EDT