« SaaS Not Just for Small Businesses, Says Serena Software | Main | SaaS and Web 2.0 - Tech Trends for SMBs to Ignore? »

I think most of us would agree with a blog post by Sean Voisen the other day at Sys-Con Media in which Voisen wondered whether or not "RIA" was a ploy to keep dictionary makers in business. The new TLA, which stands for Rich Internet Applications (as if you didn't already know that), is popping up in more and more conversation lately.

The tech industry does seem to go a little nuts with the acronyms, I think. Given the three or four different definitions of TLAs like "ASP," I truly do believe that acronym overuse complicates more than it helps. Sometimes it makes sense, but a lot of the time it doesn't. A few months ago, I also posted about how use of "-aaS" acronyms for various things "as a service" seems to be going overboard with a veritable dictionary of XaaS terms.

But more importantly, in Voisen's post, he makes a really good point about how language can be limiting -- particularly in this quote:

The problem with language is that it is inherently limiting. As soon as you put a label — a word — on something you must limit it. You must box it in and try to make it conform to the definitions and properties prescribed by the symbol you have given it. But the thing itself is not the word. It is not the symbol.

He then muses that by inventing new words for ideas that don't exist yet, we run risks of boxing ourselves in, and he asserts that we don't really need to invent new words for everything in order to have these discussions.

As always, post your comments below if you have thoughts on this.

Posted by krissidanielsson in |Digg This|Add to del.icio.us

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.ebizq.net/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3225