Re: [OSM-talk] This needs to be voted upon. (was: Re: Separating all metadata from coordinates in OSM into a wikibase instance)

[Paul Johnson]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 1:03 AM Mateusz Konieczny via talk <
talk@openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Before going to vote it would need to demonstrate some sort of clear
> benefit and
> consensus that it is reasonable.
>

For this, as well as my take on this
, is why I'm
also a hard no on this.  This is a solution looking for a problem that will
only create a bigger series of problems.  We already have bigger problems,
like making lanes=* actually pass on the ground verifiability in situations
where there's bicycle or motorcycle lanes.  Or killing ref=* on ways as a
method of describing road routes in favor of relations.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] This needs to be voted upon. (was: Re: Separating all metadata from coordinates in OSM into a wikibase instance)

[stevea]

Even better stated, if pangoSE is interested in a longer-term goal (and, it 
truly must be this if anything at all) of moving OSM towards becoming a "full 
member of the semantic web," fairly large things must happen.

1)  Linked data and "the semantic web" (which has been emerging since circa 
2001) must become more fully-formed itself.  It has been called "Web 3.0," but 
think about how well-defined even "Web 2.0" is today.  (There will be lots of 
answers here, but you see my point:  it's relatively early days for both).

2)  Much more than a "toss a poorly-formed and poorly-stated 'what for' against 
the wall on the Talk board" must happen first.  Inter-academic discussion, 
white papers, tracks at conferences, people with ideas who publish, synthesis 
of already-good-ideas-and-implementations in the semantic web with what OSM's 
longer-term goals, and much more.  This is an intermediate- to longer-term 
proposition, I'd say five to fifteen years.  (Happy Sweet 16, OSM).

3)  Drop-dead-easy-for-novices integration must be nearly seamless as these 
begin to integrate with existing workflows in OSM.  The chicken-and-egg thing 
going on right now is most people have never heard of Web 3.0 / the semantic 
web, know nothing about it, don't see it's (admittedly longer-term) benefits 
and so often have hostility or confusion about "why?"  This might have seemed 
my initial position, and isn't really true, so I now clarify.

4)  Real-life examples of how AI, neural networks, machine learning benefits of 
how linked data in a semantic web must be offered for people to see the 
benefits.  I don't mean pedagogical aids like teaching the basics of how triple 
statements, literals and URIs work (though, those are important early 
concepts), I mean "hey, that's a really neat and powerful exploitation of why 
we'd bother to link data."  The first examples might be geographical in nature 
to appear to OSM, they might not, but they should be sooner, rather than later, 
so people can more immediately realize benefits.

There:  I think I've tilled the soil a bit, and if pangoSE or somebody wants to 
plant seeds (again), I'd read #2 above and think much longer-term.  OSM could 
do this, but it's going to take more than a thread on Talk and a wad tossed 
against a wall.  And maybe a decade or two.

SteveA
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] This needs to be voted upon. (was: Re: Separating all metadata from coordinates in OSM into a wikibase instance)

[stevea]

I didn't mean to convey or imply that a vote was impending, moreso that I 
seriously disagree with the proposal as unneeded, unnecessary, poorly explained 
as to its benefits, and (as was well described before, though I paraphrase), "a 
ready-made answer for a non-problem."  My apologies if anybody got the wrong 
impression that this was up for a vote.  Rather, here and now it is being 
discussed, my "No" was merely my opinion IF it went to a vote.  Better stated, 
I disagree with the proposal, as I see no need for it, it is over-engineered, 
it has no clear merit, it is confusing, it seems to be more trouble than it is 
worth and I feel it would chase away novice volunteers as "too complex."  The 
consensus, with the exception of the proposer, seems 100% in line with my 
opinions.  I do welcome more discussion, that's why we type here.

SteveA

> On Aug 9, 2020, at 11:01 PM, Mateusz Konieczny via talk 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aug 10, 2020, 07:49 by md...@xs4all.nl:
> On 2020-08-10 03:32, stevea wrote:
> On Aug 9, 2020, at 5:29 AM, pangoSE  wrote:
> The discussion below spawned the following idea of migrating the whole tags 
> system instead.
> (an over engineered proposal largely, as Frederick says and I agree
> with, goosed by the "hype of linked data.")
> 
> I politely vote "No." I don't see the merit (again echoing
> Frederick). While I'm only one person and one vote and perhaps a bit
> more vocal than most, I feel it important to express the opinion of
> "very strongly against."
> 
> I certainly hope that if this idea goes towards implementation that there 
> will be a vote first. I also don't see the merits so my vote will also be no.
> Before going to vote it would need to demonstrate some sort of clear benefit 
> and
> consensus that it is reasonable.
> 
> Vote can be gamed in many ways, and even if that proposal somehow would won a 
> vote 
> it still would not improve it a tiny bit.
> ___
> talk mailing list
> talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk


___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

Re: [OSM-talk] This needs to be voted upon. (was: Re: Separating all metadata from coordinates in OSM into a wikibase instance)

[Mateusz Konieczny via talk]

Aug 10, 2020, 07:49 by md...@xs4all.nl:

> On 2020-08-10 03:32, stevea wrote:
>
>> On Aug 9, 2020, at 5:29 AM, pangoSE  wrote:
>>
>>> The discussion below spawned the following idea of migrating the whole tags 
>>> system instead.
>>>
>> (an over engineered proposal largely, as Frederick says and I agree
>> with, goosed by the "hype of linked data.")
>>
>> I politely vote "No."  I don't see the merit (again echoing
>> Frederick).  While I'm only one person and one vote and perhaps a bit
>> more vocal than most, I feel it important to express the opinion of
>> "very strongly against."
>>
>
> I certainly hope that if this idea goes towards implementation that there 
> will be a vote first. I also don't see the merits so my vote will also be no.
>
Before going to vote it would need to demonstrate some sort of clear benefit and
consensus that it is reasonable.

Vote can be gamed in many ways, and even if that proposal somehow would won a 
vote 
it still would not improve it a tiny bit.
___
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk