On 19 June 2011 12:37, Henry Story <[email protected]> wrote: > [snip pat]
> The way to do this is to build applications where this thing matters. So for > example in the social web we could build > a slightly more evolved "like" protocol/ontology, which would be > decentralised for one, but would also allow one to distinguish documents, > from other parts of documents and things. So one could then say that one > wishes to bring people's attention to a well written article on a rape, > rather than having to "like" the rape. Or that one wishes to bring people's > attention to the content of an article without having to "like" the style the > article is written in. I would have come down on you like a ton of bricks for that Henry, if it wasn't for seeing to-and-fro on Facebook about some Nazi-inspired club (Slimelight, for the record). On FB there is no way to express your sentiments. Like/blow to smithereens. > If such applications take hold, and there is a way the logic of using these > applications is made to work where these distinctions become useful and > visible to the end user, then there will be millions of vocal supporters of > this distinction - which we know exists, which programmers know exists, which > pretty much everyone knows exists, but which people new to the semweb web, > like the early questioners of the viability of the "mouse" and the endless > debates about that animal, will question because they can't feel in their > bones the reality of this thing. >> So far, http-range-14 is the only viable suggestion I have seen for how to >> do this. > > Well hash uris are of course a lot easier to understand. http-range-14 is > clearly a solution which is good to know about but that will have an adoption > problem. > I am of the view that this has been discussed to death, and that any mailing > list that discusses this is short of real things to do. I confess to talking bollocks when I should be coding. Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
