HS wrote: "The recent discussions on this list were very much about how to
avoid making distinctions unless you have to (Just-In-Time Distinctions?) So
why are the above distinctions needed? Particularly with regard to this
conversation."
It concerns your talks, going under the overpromising and undelivering title,
"Philosophy and the Social Web", starting from the epithet "the web is now
philosophical engineering".
Missing the distinctions is leading to such poor online services as the
schema.org's types.
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Story
To: AzamatAbdoullaev
Cc: semantic-...@w3.org ; public-lod@w3.org ; Harry Halpin ; adasal
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful
On 18 Jun 2011, at 08:13, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:
HS: "I gave a talk on the philosophy of the Social Web if you are
interested."
http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083
For the specifics of TBL's motto, "the web as a philosophical engineering",
see Harry's article:
http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v07n2_Computers_04.aspx
Some interesting assertions: "we are not analyzing a world, we are building
it. We are not experimental philosophers, we are philosophical engineers." ;
"online intelligence is generated through complex causal interaction in an
extended brain-body-environment system"; "The Web is ...the creation and
evolution of external representations in a universal information space".
I'd extend: if the the world wide web is "a universal information space",
the semantic/ontological web is a universal knowledge space.
And we need avoid confusing four fields: philosophical engineering,
philosophy of engineering, engineering philosophy, and engineering of
philosophy.
The recent discussions on this list were very much about how to avoid making
distinctions unless you have to (Just-In-Time Distinctions?) So why are the
above distinctions needed? Particularly with regard to this conversation.
Azamat
----- Original Message -----
From: Henry Story
To: adasal
Cc: Lin Clark ; Bjoern Hoehrmann ; Linked Data community ; Semantic Web
Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful
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 another, pingback,
access control, ...
Get the really simple pieces working.
and I wonder if this sort of thing can really be addressed without
overarching political/ethical/idealogical concerns. It's tough.
It all fits together really nicely. I gave a talk on the philosophy of
the Social Web if you are interested.
http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083
Hackers tend to be engineers with a political attitude, so they are more
receptive to the bigger picture. But solving the big picture problem should
have an easy entry cost if we want to get it going.
I talked to the BBC but they have limited themselves to what they will do
in the Social Web space as far as profile hosting goes. Again, I'd start small.
Facebook started in universities not that long ago.
Henry
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
Social Web Architect
http://bblfish.net/
