the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a
tweet is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs
are needed to fully rep a tweet...
so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the linked data version of
Twitter data, a la db/wiki[pedia] ...
best
Cs
On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <[email protected]> wrote:
twitter have a hard task as they have to take into account usage.
The community have evolved their own, inconsistent, usage - for
instance this tweet
greenhaze #ff big up: @_Jameslloyd @AlysFowler @brightgreenscot
@AskTheClimateQ @faisalislam @valerieoriordan @peopleandplanet
@38_degrees @krishgm
compared to
craftygreenpoet Quiz party manifesto writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver
Letwin and Danny Alexander. Join in now http://bit.ly/9eYpSI
#38degrees #ukelection
Notice the #ff hash tag and the phrase 'big up:' in the first tweet
as well as the many references (@ tags).
So a popular sign #ff has been invented and there are different
styles of posting, of drawing attention.
The developers of a name space might have to take all of these
issues into account, for instance the range of intentions of posters
of which 'drawing attention' may just be one, or be a super set.
Or, alternatively, just create a basic name space with a few, lose,
defined entities?
I think that the problem would be to define a semantics that allows
users to continue to invent usage.
Or will invention be seen to peter out anyway as people settle on a
few useful 'tools' such as the #ff hash tag?
Of course, the other side of introducing semantics is that it could
increase the expressive scope of what is an incredibly restricted
format. But twitter might find that counter productive. The
restriction, which is a product of a lack of common symbols that
might be used knowingly to extend it, is the mother of invention.
Often that invention lies in a sexual direction (or products or
money). With regard the sexual it extends into that realm well
because the mystery of not knowing is coupled with the necessity to
invent 'something' on top of what is really a well known human area
- the play of ambiguity suits the subject matter making it seem
racier than perhaps it really is.
A formalism might destroy this though?
Best,
Adam Saltiel
On 16 April 2010 02:52, Juan Sequeda <[email protected]> wrote:
Hopefully everybody has heard that Twitter will release some
annotation feature which will allow to add metadata to each tweet.
I just read this blog post http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/15/twitter-annotations/
and the following caught my attention: "There aren’t any rules as to
what can be in this metadata. YET. All the devs I’ve talked to say
they expect Twitter to “bless” namespaces so the industry will
have one common way to describe common things"
I'm just wondering what people here think about this.
Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on
it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
