but this will create islands of information and information retrieval
based
on annotations will be difficult for other applications.
i.e. amazon.com:book-rating{isbn:34345434, rating: 5}it should be easier for other applications to find information based on annotations. On Apr 16, 11:59 pm, gabriele renzi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:51 PM, Marcel Molina <[email protected]> wrote: > > More namespace nesting would of course increase people's ability to > > taxonomize. It's a splippery slope though and we are trying to balance > > expressiveness with simplicity. Providing for arbitrarily nested namespaces > > increases complexity considerably both from an implementation perspective > > and a comprehension perspective. > > I am not in favour of arbitrarrily nested, quads are ok to express > almost anything useful apart from temporal logic :) (consider a > namespace app: subject-verb-object). > > But I'm ok with you choice, just, as i said, can we at least put some > guidelines so we can avoid unintentional conflicts among implementors? > E.g. "if you want to store triples and avoid conflicts with other > applications use a namespace such as yourapp:subnamespace - key - > value" > > -- > Subscription > settings:http://groups.google.com/group/twitter-development-talk/subscribe?hl=en
