Juan Sequeda wrote:
This is all great stuff. So who can now go to Twitter and tell them
that their job has already been done...
We try the "many voices" approach :-)
Kingsley
Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Kingsley Idehen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/%7Ekidehen>
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
best
Cs
On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[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]>
<mailto:[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.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.
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President & CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
