![]() |
|||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
December 03, 2003
contempt prior to imagination
I read somewhere that in the early days of telephone, early adopters had a tough time selling the technology to city businesses. Back then, it was standard practice for executives to dictate messages to secretaries, who typed them up to be sent to the mail room, where they would then be rushed by bike messengers across town to the mail rooms of other businesses, which would then deliver them to the executives upstairs. When presented with the idea of a telephone, executives thought, "Why bother? We'd just be saving the bike messenger a trip, and they're cheaper than the telephone would be, so it's not worth it." They couldn't imagine simply picking up the phone on their desk to call someone. Even when presented with this possibility, they'd shrug it off as a nice idea, but not what they needed. Telephones were a revolutionary advance that were destined to change the very nature of business, but executives couldn't see this because they were looking through incremental lenses. They couldn't see past their existing procedures and biases. They couldn't imagine the world we now take for granted. Most such advances are slowed down by skeptics: automobiles, airplanes, microcomputers, the Web. As Jim Hendler pointed out in his speech, they start by saying, "Why?", then once we're past the "knee in the curve", they all clamor to ask "How?" This is just the nature of progress, and it's probably a good thing. What irks me, though, isn't the skeptical marketplace, it's the naysaying pundits. Whenever I read commentary with clever contempt for the Semantic Web, I say to myself, "There's that incremental thinking again." While I know in the end it won't really matter, since revolutionary advances have a way of sweeping the skeptics into line whether they like it or not, it still makes it tougher those of us trying to build things. Why can't they see it? Doesn't it call them the same way? Well, apparently not, which makes our role, as advocates, that much more important. We have to paint a clearer picture. We have to convince them with results.
Comments |
About Me Contact Me being real blogosphere events interconnectedness isabel making money musings olpc photo stories saving the world semantic web squeak etoys tidepool and storymill usability waveplace computer literacy new videos from st john pilot back from st john immuexa turns ten XO donor comments photos from haiti and st john pilots haitian pilot starts give two, keep none story: fall 2007 good press RDF Intro Angela Talk: a semweb introduction W3C Semantic Web Original Road Map SciAm Article SemanticWeb.org RDF Resource Guide SchemaWeb SUMO Full Article Index April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 December 2006 September 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 link to this site
![]()
|
||||||||
![]() |
|||||||||
|
"Big Fractal Tangle" is a phrase used by Tim Berners-Lee at ISWC 2003
to describe his vision of the Semantic Web (used with permission) "Tidepool" and "Storymill" are trademarks of Immuexa Corporation. Website design copyright © 2003-2004 by Immuexa. |
|||||||||