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] ...
Chris,
The Twitter Linked Data Space already exists in a variety of fragments.
Twitter as a medium for nano annotations (nanotations) was always an
inevitability.
You would be surprised as to what you would FIND at:
http://uriburner.com/fct, on any given day, try it :-)
As for Information Resource, in the context of the burgeoning Web of
Linked Data, I believe Descriptor Resource is much clear. As for
non-information resource, we have a "Referent" and its Name (via Generic
HTTP URI).
"Resource" overloading will always thwart comprehension of Linked Data.
Links:
1.
http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/understanding-linked-data-via-eav-model-based-structured-descriptions
-- recent presentation that is basically "Linked Data" the prequel via
EAV Model focus (RDF as Data Model is not working, so lets stopping
banging on that since its generally perceived as a Markup Language with
a variety of Representation Formats)
2. http://twitpic.com/1g02q8/full -- Referent, Identifier, and
Description/Sense (The Data Perception Trinity)
3. http://twitpic.com/1g03vo/full -- Referent, Identifier, and
Descriptor/Sense Trinity as exploited via FOAF+SSL
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
best
Cs
On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <[email protected]
<mailto:[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 <http://twitter.com/greenhaze> #ff
<http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ff> big up: @_Jameslloyd
<http://twitter.com/_Jameslloyd> @AlysFowler
<http://twitter.com/AlysFowler> @brightgreenscot
<http://twitter.com/brightgreenscot> @AskTheClimateQ
<http://twitter.com/AskTheClimateQ> @faisalislam
<http://twitter.com/faisalislam> @valerieoriordan
<http://twitter.com/valerieoriordan> @peopleandplanet
<http://twitter.com/peopleandplanet> @*38_degrees*
<http://twitter.com/38_degrees> @krishgm <http://twitter.com/krishgm>
compared to
craftygreenpoet <http://twitter.com/craftygreenpoet> Quiz party
manifesto writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander.
Join in now http://bit.ly/9eYpSI *#38degrees*
<http://twitter.com/search?q=%2338degrees> #ukelection
<http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ukelection>
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]
<mailto:[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.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.
