Hi, On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:37, Chris Sizemore wrote:
> 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] ... That's what we're doing in SMOB [1] It translates Twitter data if you integrate your Twitter account in your SMOB client, see for instance [2] and check the 'RDF' links In the current version, hashtags and @replies are not yet exported (planned for upcoming release), but they are in another exporter available at [3] - translating streamed Twitter data as RDF. It's using SemanticTweet to model the user accounts. Both exporters use FOAF, SIOC, OPO, MOAT, CommonTag, etc. Best, Alex. [1] http://smob.me [2] http://apassant.net/smob/ [3] code.google.com/p/rtsw > > > > 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. -- Dr. Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .
