The next day I left Fontainebleau around 8am and arrived at the Sleepzone Tourist hostel around 6:30pm Irish time. I need to stop right there and say just how great this hostel was! For €20 euro a night (high season price), I got a clean room to share (4 bunk beds) and a bathroom, but best of all: wireless network. It cannot be emphasized how helpful this is when traveling, especially during a conference. Other expensive hotels in Galway (and elsewhere) either do not have internet access at all, or charge over €20 a day for it. And yet it is so cheap to install, so cheap to run, and so incredibly helpful. Not only did Sleepzone have wireless internet access for those with laptops, but they had a computer room running Linux. Many FOAFers moved over to Sleepzone as soon as they could. The hostel was full. I wish them the best.
The conference itself was great. I had spent so much time learning about RDF and FOAF by myself that it was a great breath of fresh air to meet so many enthusiasts together. As the numerous photos here attached reveal there was a lot of listening to papers, a lot of guiness drinking and a lot of feasting. A Friend of a friend conference: there could be nothing better. And as should be at a FOAF conference, I met Adam Souzis, a friend of David Freeman, my flatmate from San Francisco.
A list of of photos has been collected as del.icio.uk bookmarks.
The people in Ireland were fun. As I arrived in Shannon airport, I made my way to the first available coffee shop. I asked a security guard if he had the time. He answered "yes". Some time elapsed. He smiled at me. I smiled at him, wondering a little if he was going to make me ask him precisely. Some more time elapsed. He told me the time.
In my experience, IT technologies that are successful are successful quickly; PCs, Java, email, the Web, XML.
Here is how I think this thought needs to be tackled. Let us take each technology one by one:
As you can see, it can just as well be argued that none of these technologies developed any quicker than any of the others. What really seems to determine the timing of a technology's explosion on the public scene is the wide enough spread of foundational technologies on which the successful one can grow:
note: logo stolen from Mindswap
Anyway I have worked quite hard this last week getting this clearly illustrated proof of concept of how to merge Atom and FOAF, which is really a condensation of all I have learned in the last few months on the topics of the semantic web and blogging.
I hope it prooves useful.
Everything had led me to be fearful of the outcome of the event. As I came back from my cycle trip from France the weather forcast had predicted 5 days of non-stop rain. The organisation of the wedding, like most large projects I imagine, had led to a lot of heat being dissipated, and one inevitably only sees and hears that, rarely the successes that lead to the goal.
In the end everything turned out better than perfectly. The sun shone all day. The food was excellent. The musicians, all performed perfectly. My sister's Opera singing colleagues, sang beautiful classical pieces in the church. My father sang a bass piece. Laurent, a good friend of my sister's played beautifully the classical guitar during the reception after the mass. And best of all his friends played folkloric french music that felt like it had sprung fresh out of the middle ages all the way from the church, through the park, through town and into the late night where we all learned the traditional village dances and had great fun.
The point is that in order to understand the past we need to understand the ontology they were working with. The pre-copernican ontology of stars had them revolving on a sphere, the post copernican ontology has the stars as real physical objects in space, a long way away from us. To allow us to transform the knowledge of one system into the other we need to be able to map one ontology to the other.
Well this does not seem to be such a difficult task. It is a problem if we think that both of them while using the natural language word "star" were speaking about the same thing. But the Semantic web make it easy to distinguish them. We could easily create one ontology called tag:biblical.times/astronomy/stars where there is a flat surface called earth and a semisphere above it. This semisphere has holes in it at night that lets light through. Copernicus on the other hand created an ontology of tag:copernicus.immortal/astronomy/stars where we are all located in a large 3 dimensional space with the sun at its center and the earth revolving around it. Stars were perceived to be similar bodies and their perceived rotation is due to the movement and rotation of the earth.
Put this way the two groups of thinkers were simply speaking of different things. One was speaking of the movement of light specs in the sky, the other was speaking of the movement of planets and stars in the universe. It turned out that it was easier to predict the movement of light specs in the sky using the later ontology. But when we look at the sky we can still look at it both ways. At some point in a modern planetarium the older ontology is certainly still being used.