Re: Schema.org considered helpful

On 17 Jun 2011, at 07:27, Patrick Logan wrote: > My primary other concerns have to do with (1) patent encumbrance and (2) the > schema.org "use-wrap" license The HTML 5 WG follows W3C RF Patent Policy - you can see a list of Disclosures here [1] (all from Apple). The schema.org terms [2] doe

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

A massive +1 to this Harry. Even better would be if your personal views could fit under your W3C hat ;-) We all know you can design the best technology, but if you don't address the market requirements, then that is all you will have (aka the Beta/VHS wars [1]). Lets hope there is a sea-change

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

On 16 Jun 2011, at 22:11, "Harry Halpin" wrote: > I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last > bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset. > First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search > engines went off and created their

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

* Harry Halpin wrote: >I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last >bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset. >First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search >engines went off and created their own vocabularies. According to t

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

Ian, On 2011-06 -16, at 16:41, Ian Davis wrote: > Tim, > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > >> I don't think 303 is a quick and dirty hack. >> It does mean a large extension of HTTP to be uses with non-documents. >> It does have efficiency problems. >> It is an archite

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

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 c

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

Hello, *excuse a little top-posting before comments coming inline ... Great email Harry, I agree with your sentiment that schema.org shouldn't be perceived as a massive thread to the SW community. If anything I find and welcome the move, surely it will widen the audience of web-developers int

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

nicely put! Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 4:09 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: > I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last > bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset. > First, there should be no reason to

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

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

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

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

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

On Jun 15, 2011, at 8:27 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 16 June 2011 02:26, Pat Hayes 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 cla

DocumentObjects - was: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

On 16 Jun 2011, at 21:34, Henry Story wrote: >> >> [snip] >> >> a foaf:Document; >> dc:title "Richard Cyganiak's homepage"; >> a foaf:Person; >> foaf:name "Richard Cyganiak"; >> owl:sameAs ; >> . > > so instead of using foaf:kn

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

I believe as of SemTech that Google has retracted its position of not mixing MD and RDFa. That was my primary technical concern. My primary other concerns have to do with (1) patent encumbrance and (2) the schema.org "use-wrap" license (i.e. if you "use" the site (whatever that means) the license

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

On 6/16/11 10:09 PM, Harry Halpin wrote: Schema.org is not a threat. It's an opportunity to step up. Good luck everyone! Yep! +1000 . -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi

Schema.org considered helpful

I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset. First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search engines went off and created their own vocabularies. According to the argument of decentraliz

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

Tim, On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:04 PM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote: > I don't think 303 is a quick and dirty hack. > It does mean a large extension of HTTP to be uses with non-documents. > It does have efficiency problems. > It is an architectural extension to the web architecture. > We have had many

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

On Jun 15, 2011, at 7:36 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: > On 15 June 2011 18:30, Pat Hayes 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 mov

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

On 6/16/11 9:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: We are already dealing with the schema.org issues [1][2] the best way it can be handled until opportunity costs veer them towards upping the semantic fidelity of their contribution. Links: 1. http://schema.rdfs.org 2. http://uriburner.com/describ

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

On 6/16/11 6:53 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote: Hi Tim , "documents" per se (a la HTTP response 200 response) on the web are less and less relevant as opposed to the "conceptual entities" that are represented by this document and held e.g. as DB records inside CMS, social networks etc. e.g.

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

On 13 Jun 2011, at 13:41, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > I want to use these URIs as identifiers in my data, and I have no intention > of redirecting through an intermediate blank node just because the TAG fucked > up some years ago. The TAG did not f.up as you say, and you can do what you want any

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

Hi Tim , "documents" per se (a la HTTP response 200 response) on the web are less and less relevant as opposed to the "conceptual entities" that are represented by this document and held e.g. as DB records inside CMS, social networks etc. e.g. a social network is about "people" those are the imp

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

I disagree with this post very strongly, and it is hard to know where to start, and I am surprised to see it. On 2011-06 -13, at 07:41, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 13 Jun 2011, at 09:59, Christopher Gutteridge wrote: >> The real problem seems to me that making resolvable, HTTP URIs for real >>

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

In case anyone's not aware, the TAG is working in the area being discussed on this thread - i.e. on deployment and performance of linked data nose-following and the possible conflict with current metadata practices - as its issue 57, http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/group/track/issues/57 . In my analysis

Re: Using Facebook Data Objects to illuminate Linked Data add-on re. structured data

On 6/16/11 4:41 AM, Joe Presbrey wrote: ...reviewing my Facebook acl:agent in my personal WACL: http://presbrey.data.fm/.meta#me http://uriburner.com/describe/?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fpresbrey.data.fm%2F.meta%23me seems to beg Facebook Graph sponger ;) Yes, but that's a URL (Address) for an HTML reso

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle

On 15 Jun 2011, at 23:54, Francois-Paul Servant wrote: >> And here you and Pat and Alan (and TimBL, for that matter) are preaching >> that we can't use this one billion of fantastic free URIs to identify things >> because it wouldn't make semantic sense. > > do you mean that it's OK to use wikip

Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

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 fo