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 problem... (not in
general. of course there is in general, but for their specific use
cases)
The question is if schema.org makes the confusion, or if the schemas
published there use a DocumentObject ontology where the distinctions
are clear but the rule is that object relationships are in fact going
via the primary topic of the document. I have not looked at the
schema, but it seems that before arguing that they are inconsistent
one should see if there is not a consistent interpretation of what
they are doing.
Sorry, I'm missing something - from what I can see, each document has
a number of items, potentially in a hierarchy, and each item is either
anonymous, or has an @itemid.
Where's the confusion between Document and Primary Subject?
Put differently, are they conflating things i.e., leaving the beholder
to make the distinction outside AWWW. Yes, they are, but purely because
this effort is Information Space dimension based :-)
Time for a video [1].
Links:
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA -- imaging the 10th dimension
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
