A massive +1 to this Harry.
Even better would be if your personal views could fit under your W3C hat ;-)
We all know you can design the best technology, but if you don't address the
market requirements, then that is all you will have (aka the Beta/VHS wars [1]).
Lets hope there is a sea-change
On 17 Jun 2011, at 07:27, Patrick Logan wrote:
My primary other concerns have to do with (1) patent encumbrance and (2) the
schema.org use-wrap license
this-is-not-legal-advice
The HTML 5 WG follows W3C RF Patent Policy - you can see a list of Disclosures
here [1] (all from Apple).
The
I'm sure that some of these points were relevant at some level, but I suspect
that's not the key reason.
At some point, the team working on the internal project would have to go to the
divisional CTO and/or CIO in charge of operations and ask permission to deploy
the code on the production
On 17/06/11 01:46, David Booth wrote:
I agree with TimBL that it is *good* to distinguish between web pages
and dogs -- and we should encourage folks to do so -- because doing so
*does* help applications that need this distinction. But the failure to
make this distinction does *not* break the
I noticed Steve's comment in this very civilised discussion without seeing
his details, and was going to confirm how much this reminds me of the way
CTO's and architect groups think.
Steve mentions an 'internal project', but I think there is a degree of
confusion about the nature of the domain we
Hi all,
we are happy to announce that the Billion Triples Challenge 2011 Data Set
has been published yesterday.
We thus circulate the Call for Participation for the 9th Semantic Web
Challenge 2011 again.
This year, the Billion Triple Challenge data set consists of 2 billion
triples.
The fact of the matter is that the Semantic Web academic community has
had their priorities skewed to the wrong direction. Had folks been
spending time doing usability testing and focussing on user-feedback
on common problems (such as the rather obvious vocabulary hosting
problem) rather
On 6/17/11 12:13 PM, Lin Clark wrote:
I don't want to start a fight on this list, there are already enough
of those going on and I have a feeling those are pushing potentially
interested people away from joining the effort. I just wanted to note
that yes, it has been pointed out.
We cannot
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 21:22 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2011-06 -16, at 16:41, Ian Davis wrote:
The problem here is that there are so few things that people want to
say about web pages compared with the multitude of things they want to
say about every other type of thing in
This year, the Billion Triple Challenge data set consists of 2 billion
triples. The dataset was crawled during May/June 2011 using a random sample
of URIs from the BTC 2010 dataset as seed URIs. Lots of thanks to Andreas
Harth for all his effort put into crawling the web to compile this
That's interesting. Was there anybody who pointed this out at the time?
Or maybe this was sarcastic... if so, sorry for the misunderstanding :)
On 6/17/11 1:46 AM, David Booth wrote:
I agree with TimBL that it is*good* to distinguish between web pages
and dogs -- and we should encourage folks to do so -- because doing so
*does* help applications that need this distinction. But the failure to
make this distinction does*not* break the
On 6/17/11 12:35 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
If you use HTTP 200 for something different, then
you break my ability to look at a page, review it, and then
express my review in RDF, using the page's URI as the identifier.
Not quite. It is saying that you can't give a review for my
On 17 Jun 2011, at 21:13, Lin Clark wrote:
That's interesting. Was there anybody who pointed this out at the time?
Yes. Most notably, Ian Hickson pointed it out in direct relation to RDFa and
Microdata
http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg11067.html
Due to several requests the submission deadline to the third
conference Semantic Web in Libraries (SWIB), 28.-30.11.2011
in Hamburg has been extended to June, 30th 2011.
Here, once again, the call for proposals:
After the success of the Semantic Web in Libraries (SWIB) events in
2009 and 2010,
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 12:35 PM, Dave Reynolds
dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 21:22 -0400, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
On 2011-06 -16, at 16:41, Ian Davis wrote:
The problem here is that there are so few things that people want to
say about web pages compared with the
On 2011-06 -17, at 08:51, Ian Davis wrote:
If you use HTTP 200 for something different, then
you break my ability to look at a page, review it, and then
express my review in RDF, using the page's URI as the identifier.
Not quite. It is saying that you can't give a review for my
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
On 2011-06 -17, at 08:51, Ian Davis wrote:
If you use HTTP 200 for something different, then
you break my ability to look at a page, review it, and then
express my review in RDF, using the page's URI as the identifier.
On 17 Jun 2011, at 15:04, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
AND when they click like on a facebook comment they are
saying they like the comment not the thing it is commenting on.
Indeed I have had a few people on Facebook comment that they were very unhappy
not being able to distinguish between what
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
Not quite. It is saying that you can't give a review for my
http://foobar.gov.uk/datasets/population web page because the RDF
returned by the URI says it denotes a dataset not the web page. You can
still review the dataset
Hi,
On 17 June 2011 14:04, Tim Berners-Lee ti...@w3.org wrote:
On 2011-06 -17, at 08:51, Ian Davis wrote:
...
Quite. When a facebook user clicks the Like button on an IMDB page
they are expressing an opinion about the movie, not the page.
BUT when the click a Like button on a blog they
On 6/17/11 2:18 PM, Ian Davis wrote:
I am really not sure that I want to give up the ability in my browser
to bookmark a page about something -- the IMDB page a
about a movie, rather than the movie itself.
OK, we differ here then. I would prefer to bookmark the movie because
that's what
Hi,
On 6/17/2011 4:11 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 17 June 2011 14:04, Tim Berners-Leeti...@w3.org wrote:
On 2011-06 -17, at 08:51, Ian Davis wrote:
...
Quite. When a facebook user clicks the Like button on an IMDB page
they are expressing an opinion about the movie, not the page.
BUT
On 6/17/11 2:55 PM, Ian Davis wrote:
BUT when the click a Like button on a blog they are expressing they like the
blog, not the movie it is about.
AND when they click like on a facebook comment they are
saying they like the comment not the thing it is commenting on.
And on Amazon
On 6/17/11 3:11 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I just had to go and check whether Amazon reviews and Facebook
comments actually do have their own pages. That's because I've never
seen them presented as anything other than objects within another
container, either in a web page or a mobile app. So I think
Small typo changed the meaning of what I was saying:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Ian Davis li...@iandavis.com wrote:
OK, we differ here then. I would prefer to bookmark the movie because
that's what I'm interested in. The page will change over the years but
the movie will still persist.
Hi all,
This thread seems to me to be classic neat vs. scruffy argument [1]. I used
to be a neat, when I was young, foolish and of course selfish. Now that I am
old enough to see others' points of view, I have become scruffy. Either that,
or I'm just tired of trying to force others to do
On 6/17/11 3:27 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Yes, it is a separate thing representable as a Data Object. Now the
obvious question: what is a Web Page? Isn't that a sourced from Data
at an Address that's streamed to a client that uses a specific data
presentation metaphor as basis for user
Hi,
On 17 June 2011 15:32, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 6/17/11 3:11 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I just had to go and check whether Amazon reviews and Facebook
comments actually do have their own pages. That's because I've never
seen them presented as anything other than
On 6/17/11 3:36 PM, David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
This thread seems to me to be classic neat vs. scruffy argument [1]. I used
to be a neat, when I was young, foolish and of course selfish. Now that I am old enough
to see others' points of view, I have become scruffy. Either that, or I'm just
On 6/17/11 3:44 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 17 June 2011 15:32, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 6/17/11 3:11 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I just had to go and check whether Amazon reviews and Facebook
comments actually do have their own pages. That's because I've never
seen them
An interesting and thought provoking post, Harry, and close to my own in
many respects.
Strangely it reminded me of one of my previous lives. In 1983 I was
working for a radio station in Stoke on Trent (north English midlands).
It was a traditional local radio station with a duty to serve a
On 6/17/11 3:53 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
Dunno if the analogy is a perfect fit, but it feels to me as if
schema.org is a game changer that, in one way or another, we're going
to get used to having around.
It's a game changer because its given the entire Linked Data and
Semantic Web
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[As an aside, I would claim that most reviews are in fact about things -
restaurants, books, music - not about the web pages.]
Or about the weather in Oacala, for example.
Pat
Dave
On 17 Jun 2011, at 14:51, adasal wrote:
Don't expect any support from that quarter. (Well apart from a few unhelpful
scraps.)
The question is how can the SemWeb academic community address these issues?
There is the hacker community too, btw. The academic community is looking to be
way
On 17 Jun 2011, at 17:36, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
Wave! I'm very much in the hacker community too. Get cool stuff done on hack
days and so forth.
My current hack:
screen scraping the glastonbury festival site to get their entire programme;
[Apologies if you receive this more than once]
Final call for Papers
3rd International Workshop on Search and Mining User-generated Contents
(SMUC 2011)
28th October 2011 | Glasgow, UK
http://ir.ii.uam.es/smuc2011/
Held in
Dear colleagues,
We're conducting some research into the current use of blank-nodes in
Linked Data publishing, and we need your help.
We would like to get a general impression of the intent of publishers
when using blank-nodes in their RDF data. Along these lines, we drafted
a short survey
On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:09 AM, Harry wrote:
According to the argument of decentralized extensibility, schema.org
*exactly* what Google/Yahoo!/Microsoft are supposed to be doing. It's a
straightfoward site that clearly for how the average Web developer can use
structured data in markup to
So the internet is a country. In this country some may conform while others
may break the rules - of this country and/or of the country from you or they
have come. it's fun to break rules - we can listen to decent music for a
start.
We can also put it about that we are the bad asses. How cool is
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 17, 2011, at 6:35 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
[As an aside, I would claim that most reviews are in fact about things -
restaurants, books, music - not about the web pages.]
Or about the weather in Oacala, for
Yes, it's an utter nonsense.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with semantics, semweb. It is just a fancy
catalogue, remarkably similar to what is being developed at Yell (Yellow
pages) to mediate directory listings, especially for mobile clients.
It is a way for the big three to cut into the
On 6/17/11 4:30 PM, Henry Story wrote:
In that space we have foaf you may say. But nobody really bothered
making it potent. For example the viral part is missing: we only just
wrote up a paper on how to make friending easy (viral)
http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/05/09/
So what the linked data
On 6/17/11 4:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
In short we need to all work together in the semweb as a team, using
the tools we have built to do that. It's really not difficult to do. :-)
[1] video http://bblfish.net/blog/2011/05/25/
Yep!
+1000.
Working as a team has proven to be a little
Hi Henry,
Hope you are good.
Yes there is the hacker community and that is the twist in the tail of the
story of the internet.
It may well be that certain projects will gather sufficient momentum to
address the balance (that I explain I see needs addressing, akin to pirate
radio + commercial
On 6/17/11 3:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/17/11 3:44 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
Hi,
On 17 June 2011 15:32, Kingsley Idehenkide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 6/17/11 3:11 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I just had to go and check whether Amazon reviews and Facebook
comments actually do have their own
On 17 Jun 2011, at 19:27, adasal wrote:
That said the hacker is a various beast,
Indeed, hackers are not angels. But the people on this list should get back to
hacking or work together with open source projects to get initial minimal
working pieces embedded there. WebID is one; foaf is
You've lost me there - their own example they give on schema.org for RDFa is
less verbose than the microdata, and could be made even less so.
http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
What costs are you talking about being incurred? Microdata just looks like
RDFa with a couple renames, explicit item
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Renato Iannella
r...@semanticidentity.comwrote:
On 17 Jun 2011, at 07:27, Patrick Logan wrote:
My primary other concerns have to do with (1) patent encumbrance and (2)
the schema.org use-wrap license
this-is-not-legal-advice
The HTML 5 WG follows W3C RF
have been afc/ill for a while and after catching up today I've noticed
there's been quite a bit going on over the last month, lots of nice
meaty posts to the list, seems like a good chance to embrace some things
and see what can be done moving forwards - so a few questions and comments:
Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
And on Amazon people say I found this review useful to
like the review on the product being reviewed, separately from
rating the product.
So there is a lot of use out there which involves people expressing
stuff in general about the message not its subject.
yes, common
Ian Davis wrote:
As an additional point, a review _is_ a seperate thing, it's not a web
page. It is often contained within a webpage. It seems you are
conflating the two here. Reviews and comments can be and often are
syndicated across multiple sites so clearly any liking of the review
needs to
Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/17/11 3:11 PM, Leigh Dodds wrote:
I just had to go and check whether Amazon reviews and Facebook
comments actually do have their own pages. That's because I've never
seen them presented as anything other than objects within another
container, either in a web page or
could also term it constrained vs diverse :)
David Wood wrote:
Hi all,
This thread seems to me to be classic neat vs. scruffy argument [1]. I used
to be a neat, when I was young, foolish and of course selfish. Now that I am old enough
to see others' points of view, I have become scruffy.
you should post to the lists more harry :)
Harry Halpin wrote:
I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last
bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset.
First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search
engines went off and
Danny Ayers wrote:
On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
If you agree with Danny that a description can be a substitute for the thing it
describes, then I am waiting to hear how one of you will re-write classical
model theory to accommodate this classical use/mention error.
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Pat's knows something about the history of
what's known to work and what isn't. You ignore that history at the peril of
your ideas simply not working.
well said, although I think we could bracket yourself in that category
too :)
Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
One last comment, it's a shame we use a code meaning See Other
You could get a lot of useful mileage out of a 3XX code meaning Is
Described By
and what if you got two of those 3XX's chained, what would be being
described?
- GET /A
- 30X /B
- GET /B
- 30X /C
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
One last comment, it's a shame we use a code meaning See Other
You could get a lot of useful mileage out of a 3XX code meaning Is
Described By
and what if you got two of those 3XX's chained,
On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Nathan wrote:
You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to a
universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information from
data, such that:
x-sasha :animalname sasha ; :created 2011 .
was read as:
Henry Story wrote:
On 17 Jun 2011, at 22:42, Nathan wrote:
You could use the same name for both if each name was always coupled to a
universe, specified by the predicate, and you cut out type information from
data, such that:
x-sasha :animalname sasha ; :created 2011 .
was read as:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 5:35 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
One last comment, it's a shame we use a code meaning See Other
You could get a lot of useful mileage out
62 matches
Mail list logo
