Log in

No account? Create an account
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Well, that didn't take long

Cavilling hack Andrew Orlowski sticks in the boot following the withdrawal of funding for the Web Science Institute.

Nice to hear one's research described as "webtastic wankery of dubious intellectual merit and zero commercial potential".

  • 1

Re: I sympathise, but...

I don't doubt Tim, Nigel, Wendy, or Jim's intelligence, having worked them at various points, however they all have a very laissez-faire attitude to security, which is common across semantic web academics, and many practitioners.

I was at Tim's inaugural too, and I didn't think they answered the point well.

It could be that real trust on the (semanitc) web is impossible, and personally I think that would be a price worth paying for the advances, but it doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do better this time round.

Re: I sympathise, but...

Granted, security on the SW has taken a back seat so far, mainly because there are more fundamental areas that needed to be addressed first (representation, reasoning, query, etc), and that security is concerned with a broader field than just the SW; developments on the Web should work for an extension like the SW.

As for trust - existing Web approaches don't work particularly well, and the different tack taken by early developments in the SW is an indication that CS researchers are *trying* to do better this time around.

Reading through some of his previous articles, Orlowski's main complaint seems to be that the primary goal of CS research isn't market-ready products, but that would be because research is not the same as development. For that matter, academic CS research is a different beast to industrial CS research (a dying breed), with the latter being more closely tied to product cycles and portfolios.

  • 1