On 6/19/11 6:36 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:58, Nathan wrote:
Nathan wrote:
Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
but dont be surprised as less and less people will be willing to listen as
more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based on schema.org) pop up
never knowing there was this problem... (not in general. of course there is in
general, but for their specific use cases)
The question is if schema.org makes the confusion, or if the schemas published
there use a DocumentObject ontology where the distinctions are clear but the
rule is that object relationships are in fact going via the primary topic of
the document. I have not looked at the schema, but it seems that before arguing
that they are inconsistent one should see if there is not a consistent
interpretation of what they are doing.
Sorry, I'm missing something - from what I can see, each document has a number
of items, potentially in a hierarchy, and each item is either anonymous, or has
an @itemid.
Where's the confusion between Document and Primary Subject?
Or do you mean from the Schema.org side, where each Type and Property has a
dereferencable URI, which currently happens to also eb used for the document
describing the Type/Property?
Well I can't really tell because I don't know what the semantics of those
annotations are, or how they function. Without those it is difficult to tell if
they have made a mistake. If there is no way of translating what they are doing
into a system that does not make the confusion, then one could explore what the
cost of that will be to them. If the confusion is strong then there will be
limitations in what they can express that way. It will then be a matter of
working out what those limitations are and then offering services that allow
one to go further than what they are proposing. At the very least the good
thing is that they are not bringing the confusion into the RDF space, since
they are using their own syntax and ontologies.
There may also be an higher way to fix this so that they could return a 20x
(x-some new number) which points to the document URL (but returns the
representation immediately, a kind of efficient HTTP-range-14 version) So there
are a lot of options. Currently their objects are tied to an html document.
What are the json crowd going to think?
Microdata as espoused by schema.org, via actual Microdata spec, includes
a rules for making JSON representations. Irrespective, the conflation of
entity Name and representation Address ultimately remains. But again, in
the Information Space realm these ambiguities are the norm. Thus, it
ultimately boils down to bridge vocabularies and ontologies to solve
this problem re. Data Space dimension exploitation.
Personally, I just don't loose sleep over schema.org, its a great
contribution that ultimately simplifies comprehension of the Data Space
dimension. Remember, we humans don't do well with prevention, we prefer
cure (via pills ideally) that are immediately available once calamities
manifest :-)
In any case there is a problem of translation that has to be dealt with first.
Yes-ish.
Kingsley
Henry
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
