On Sat, 2011-06-18 at 23:05 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple
as this. Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male
from female dogs. One simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender,
and there is a lot that can be said
On 20 Jun 2011, at 02:48, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 20:15, Danny Ayers wrote:
Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got
On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
The URI :-)
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
On 6/20/11 10:39 AM, Henry Story wrote:
On 20 Jun 2011, at 10:51, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
The URI :-)
Perhaps we should write it
URi
to get a bit of Apple magic. Pronounced your-eye,
On 6/20/11 1:48 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
Myers Briggs is based on the Jungian analysis of mythology and
personality types, with a few additions. Myths being public dreams,
and dreams being private myths.
The personality types are the lens from which we interpret the inner
and outer universal
On 20 June 2011 10:51, Kingsley Idehen kide...@openlinksw.com wrote:
On 6/20/11 8:31 AM, Henry Story wrote:
Perhaps it can become mythical. The URL should be by now:-)
The URI :-)
The mythical URI, perfect.
--
http://danny.ayers.name
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
Ok. So you need to give each of your dogs and cats a webid enabled RDFID chip
To inject a little reality: Sashapooch has got an embedded RFID (not
yet RDFID!) tag, not sure but I think it became Italian law.
Basilhound being a
Point taken, I forget where I am sometimes, will try harder. My apologies.
On 19 June 2011 21:06, Nathan nat...@webr3.org wrote:
Danny Ayers wrote:
I feel very guilty being in threads like this. Shit fuck smarter people
than
me.
Just minor, and I can hardly talk as I swear most often in
On 6/20/11 14:01 , Danny Ayers wrote:
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Storyhenry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
Ok. So you need to give each of your dogs and cats a webid enabled RDFID chip
To inject a little reality: Sashapooch has got an embedded RFID (not
yet RDFID!) tag, not sure but I think it
Point taken Pat but I have been in the same ring as you for many
years, but to progress the Web can't we just take our hands off
the wheel, let it go where it wants. (Not that I have any influence,
and realistically you neither Pat). I'm now just back from a
sabbatical, but right now would
On 19 Jun 2011, at 06:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as
this. Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female
dogs. One simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a lot
that can be said
On 6/19/11 7:43 AM, Danny Ayers wrote:
Point taken Pat but I have been in the same ring as you for many
years, but to progress the Web can't we just take our hands off
the wheel, let it go where it wants. (Not that I have any influence,
and realistically you neither Pat). I'm now just back
Hi Hugh,
By the way, as is well-known I think, a lot of people use and therefore must
be happy with URIs that are not Range-14 compliant, such as
http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema .
Your general point that there is non-compliant data out there that
people are still able to make use of is
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:05, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and
it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #.
Plenty of people saying they
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and it
would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't do 303 or #.
Plenty of people saying they can't express
On 19 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Er. we use it :-)
The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech.
The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all
dimensions of the Web:
1. Information Space
2. Data Space
3.
Thanks Henry.
Just to be clear on one point:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 12:44, Henry Story wrote:
snip /
When we help people publish, it really is tough to engage them long enough
to care about the complex issues, and they often get it wrong - I am engaged
with quite a few people who are now
On 12 Jun 2011, at 14:40, Danny Ayers wrote:
[snip]
Aside from containing a different bunch of bits because of the
encoding, sasha-photo.jpg could be a lossy-compressed version of
sasha-photo.gif, containing less pixel information yet sharing many
characteristics.
All ok so far..?
If
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia),
and it would break and be unfixable if the sources didn't
particular confusion is so destructive. Unlike the dogs-vs-bitches case,
the difference between the document and its topic, the thing, is that one is
ABOUT the other. This is not simply a matter of ignoring some
Could it be exactly the other way around? that documents and things
described in
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
Absolutely, Pat. Well said.
This is really important.
Can we please stop the madness of confusing things with documents about them
and do what we want to do cleanly and in an efficient way.
Tim
On 2011-06 -19, at 00:05, Pat Hayes wrote:
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is
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
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
On 19 June 2011 12:37, Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net 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
On 19 Jun 2011, at 19:44, Danny Ayers wrote:
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.
yeah, me too. Though now you folks managed to get me
I thought forever that if we see iniquities we are duty-bound to stand
in the way.
But that don't seem to change anything.
Let the crap rain forth, if you really need to make sense of it the
blokes on this list will do it.
Activity is GOOD, no matter how idiotic.
Decisions made on very
Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
your sails it's very different. These things don't really allow for
change.
Only slightly off-topic, very relevant here, need to pin down WebID in
a sense my dogs
Danny Ayers wrote:
I feel very guilty being in threads like this. Shit fuck smarter people than
me.
Just minor, and I can hardly talk as I swear most often in different
settings, but I am a little surprised to see this language around here.
I quite like having an arena where these words
On 6/19/11 1:39 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 14:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
Er. we use it :-)
The problem with this whole Linked Data thing is that its truly Ninja tech.
The killer conductor of value is the LINK. This lethal weapon applies to all
dimensions of the Web:
1.
On 6/19/11 2:26 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 13:04, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/19/11 12:05 PM, Hugh Glaser wrote:
A step too far?
Hi.
I've sort of been waiting for someone to say:
I have a system that consumes RDF from the world out there (eg dbpedia), and it
would break and
On 6/19/11 5:56 PM, 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
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
+1 to Netlogo!
Regards,
Dave
On Jun 19, 2011, at 18:52, John Erickson wrote:
Henry Story asked...
Perhaps a more scientific way to express this is within the language of
self-organising systems. There is a lot of research there which is relevant
to us.
On 19 June 2011 20:42, Henry Story henry.st...@bblfish.net wrote:
On 19 Jun 2011, at 20:15, Danny Ayers wrote:
Only personal Henry, but have you tried the Myers-Briggs thing - I
think you used to be classic INTP/INTF - but once you got WebID in
your sails it's very different. These things
On 16 June 2011 22:39, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Not only do I not follow your reasoning, I don't even know what it is you are
saying. The document is a valid *representation* of the car, yes of course.
That's all that's necessary to square this circle.
But as valid as the car itself?
On 17 June 2011 02:46, David Booth da...@dbooth.org 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
Really (sorry to keep raining on the parade, but) it is not as simple as this.
Look, it is indeed easy to not bother distinguishing male from female dogs. One
simply talks of dogs without mentioning gender, and there is a lot that can be
said about dogs without getting into that second topic.
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
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
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 :)
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 Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:24 AM, Richard Cyganiak rich...@cyganiak.dewrote:
On 15 Jun 2011, at 01:07, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
Google won't scrap schema.org because your thought experiment proved
that it's not “semantically clear.”
Richard, that wasn't the point. You mocked the idea that
On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread you will say
what *will* be useful for evaluating web
On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has
flexibility, it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual
thing? To me that sounds like saying, given
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, 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
On Jun 15, 2011, at 10:04 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
Apologies if my keyboard sneered at you, though comparing an application
problem to 1% of hr14 at web scale hardly trivializes it; certainly it does
the opposite. Good luck preserving your mental model if you require
webmasters to spell
On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:38 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
On 16 Jun 2011, at 07:05, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
I think that we are beyond the point where that kind of extremely
idealised account is useful for evaluating web technologies.
We will agree to disagree then. Perhaps in another thread
On Thu, 2011-06-16 at 16:38 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
[ . . . ]
There's nothing around HTTP that says it can't be
given the same name, and it's a darn sight more useful than a
wave-over-there redirect or a random fish/bike association. I can't
On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying
or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running
it past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a
description
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a
burden on publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish
to refer to these information resources themselves, making them
unable to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF.
What about minting
* [2011-06-14 08:55:09 -0700] Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us écrit:
] Well, you have got me confused. Are you saying here that it does
] in fact make sense to say that a description of the eiffel tower
] is 356M tall?
I'm just saying that things like this will be published because the
publisher is
On 6/15/11 4:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
On 13 June 2011 07:52, Pat Hayespha...@ihmc.us wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or
how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it
past me again? Bear in mind that I do not
On Jun 15, 2011, at 1:35 PM, Jason Borro wrote:
I agree with your sentiments Danny, fwiw. The current scheme is a burden on
publishers for the sake of a handful of applications that wish to refer to
these information resources themselves, making them unable to talk about
Web pages using
On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Boy, that is a humdinger of a non-sequiteur. Given that HTTP has flexibility,
it is OK to identify a description of a thing with the actual thing? To me
that sounds like saying, given that movies are projected, it is OK to say
that
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. You
might want to
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 11:04 PM, Jason Borro ja...@openguid.net wrote:
Good luck preserving your mental model if you require webmasters to spell
Korzybski.
This is an odd comment. It's like saying good luck preserving your model of
TCP if you require network developers to know where Postel
re
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 08:33:47PM -0700, Pat Hayes wrote:
But if you are a semantic inference engine, and you get the dog and its
picture muddled, will you likely generate a lot of nonsensical assertions?
Answer, Yes, you will. Which is the key point at issue here.
We should be able to
On 6/13/11 1:28 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
But I don't think all this is really germane to the http-range-14 issue. The
point there is, does the URI refer to something like a representation
(information resource, website, document, RDF graph, whatever) or something
which definitely canNOT be sent
On 6/13/11 6:52 AM, Pat Hayes wrote:
OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you are saying or
how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue. Want to try running it
past me again? Bear in mind that I do not accept your claim that a description
of something is in
Before I comment, I just want to summarise my understanding because
http-range-14 is a weird term;
I understand it as the range-14 issue that when you use 302 to redirect
from a URI-A to a URL-B we have a convention that URL-B has some
relationship to URI-A but it's not defined, we don't
On Jun 13, 2011, at 1:51 PM, William Waites wrote:
* [2011-06-12 22:52:18 -0700] Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us écrit:
] OK, I am now completely and utterly lost. I have no idea what you
] are saying or how any of it is relevant to the http-range-14 issue.
] Want to try running it past me
On 12 June 2011 01:51, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
On Jun 11, 2011, at 12:20 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
...
It's just that the schema.org designers don't seem to care much about the
distinction between information resources and angels and pinheads. This is
the prevalent attitude
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 6:19 PM, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
but the serious problem with this idea is, that it makes it impossible to
simply refer to these information resources themselves. So we would be unable
to talk about Web pages using the Web description language RDF.
That seems
(there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
thing, right?
Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things they
describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed to be, eg
in cartography, but even those cases don't stand up
On Jun 12, 2011, at 4:13 PM, Danny Ayers wrote:
(there will be some isomorphism between a thing and a description of a
thing, right?
Absolutely not. Descriptions are not in any way isomorphic to the things
they describe. (OK, some 'diagrammatic' representations can be claimed to
be, eg
On 13 June 2011 02:28, Pat Hayes pha...@ihmc.us wrote:
Next point: there can indeed be correspondences between the syntactic
structure of a description and the aspects of reality it describes.
That is what I was calling isomorphism (which I still don't think was
inaccurate). But ok, say there
69 matches
Mail list logo
