No, as long as the primary consumers are Facebook and Twitter (and maybe
Google, Yahoo, etc. if they ever see fit to actually consume
schema.org), then Web page creators are going to have to cater to all of
these 'simplifications' together, as there will be no reasoning, and
that 'little bit of semantics' is going to create a bad taste.
Point taken about our own inability to stop re-inventing the wheel
(although at least we spend every week telling people how to stop doing
so - at least I know I do).
Barry
On 20/06/2012 20:08, Hugh Glaser wrote:
Yes.
I think it is meant to happen at the consumer side.
The consumer initialises their store with appropriate equivalences and
sub-thingies for their purposes.
If you are building an app that expects only one of these, then you aren't
really building a Semantic Web app.
And ideally the app will extend the set as it finds equivalence stuff in the
wild.
By the way, we also have (at least)
rdfs.'comment', dbpedia.'abstract', dc.'description', dcterms.'description',
core.'overview', jisc.'description', resex.'detailed-description'
when the system is trying to pick up something to show as a description of what
I am looking at.
I realise I need to update the list :-)
I'll probably add your suggestions as well.
and I have been trying to work if I want fb: as well.
Best
On 20 Jun 2012, at 19:52, Aidan Hogan wrote:
On 20/06/2012 18:58, Barry Norton wrote:
Does the fact that Web users now need to mark up their pages with
*og:description*, *schema:description* /and/ *twitter:description* not
make anyone in those communities think that maybe /this/ one had a point
in the first place?
And that maybe this proliferation is actually /harder /to manage than
dealing with (shock horror) multiple namespaces?
Did someone say reasoning?!
Cheers,
Aidan
P.S.,
http://vimeo.com/28667500
http://vimeo.com/28667555
