Alan,
Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama.
Welcome to the real world.
Cheers,
Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html
On 12 Jun 2011, at 11:12, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Lin Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
David, as you know, it is trivial to distinguish in representation
the difference between an information object and a person. I don't
understand why you keep repeating this misinformation.
-Alan
It is trivial to distinguish between an information resource and
the resource it talks about
There is no "if". In the below you are talking about matters other
than being able to make the distinction.
if you are 1) developing a custom system under your control for
your own needs, which is not extensible and does not have to
integrate code published by developers with a different knowledge
base than you
Please give me some evidence for this. My experience (not
insignificant) is otherwise.
-and- 2) do not have end users who you have to educate in the
distinction between an info resource and an "other web resource" so
that they can effectively add content to your system.
Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama.
However, it is not trivial to add this distinction when you are
working in an extensible system which you do not control
It depends on the manner in which the system is made extensible.
Architecture and good design matters. However, It is this attitude
that has led, in part, to the prulgation of schema.org as a closed
architecture.
or when you do not have the resources to invest in reeducation
camps to change the way end users and other developers think.
As an educator, in part, I do not consider educating people to require
investing in reeducation camps. In my opinion, if you want to build a
system by which data can be effectively aggregated and put to novel
use by machines (this is what I thought we were doing) then I think
you will fail if you think that will come by continuing to set no
standards for how these systems communicate meaning and what kind of
knowledge someone needs to have to work with them correctly. i cite
the experience of the last 50 years of computer technology as
evidence.
-Alan
I invite anyone who disagrees and who believes this is trivial to
actually try effectively communicating the distinction made by
httpRange-14 to an outside technology community and to attempt the
social change necessary to make it work consistently in practice.
Best,Lin
