Hi
I haven't had time to follow link
I expect there is an issue of how to think about a semantic web.
I can see Google is about ruthlessly exploiting the atomisation of the
Bazaar. Of course from within the walls of their own Cathedral.
Recall is in inverse proportion to accuracy.
I think web behav
-- Original Message -
From: Henry Story
To: AzamatAbdoullaev Azamat
Cc: semantic-...@w3.org ; public-lod@w3.org ; Harry Halpin ; adasal
Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 6:19 PM
Subject: Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful
On 18 Jun 2011, at 17:09, AzamatAbdoullaev
Abdoullaev
> 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 tal
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
On 18 Jun 2011, at 15:54, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/18/11 1:24 PM, Henry Story wrote:
>> On 18 Jun 2011, at 13:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/18/11 12:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/18/11 8:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
> The recent discussions on this list were very much ab
On 6/18/11 1:24 PM, Henry Story wrote:
On 18 Jun 2011, at 13:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/18/11 12:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/18/11 8:58 AM, Henry Story wrote:
The recent discussions on this list were very much about how to avoid making
distinctions unless you have to (Just-In-Tim
On 18 Jun 2011, at 13:20, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 6/18/11 12:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>> On 6/18/11 8:58 AM, Henry Story 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
On 6/18/11 12:16 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 6/18/11 8:58 AM, Henry Story 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
t
On 6/18/11 8:58 AM, Henry Story 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.
A root of these convers
Semantic Web
<mailto:semantic-...@w3.org>
*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 p
enry 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
mmunity ; 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
you should post to the lists more harry :)
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 create
On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 2:14 AM, Renato Iannella
wrote:
>
> 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
>
You've lost me there - their own example they give on schema.org for RDFa is
less verbose than the microdata, and could be made even less so.
http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html
What costs are you talking about being incurred? Microdata just looks like
RDFa with a couple renames, explicit item s
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 anoth
Hi Henry,
Hope you are good.
Yes there is the hacker community and that is the twist in the tail of the
story of the internet.
It may well be that certain projects will gather sufficient momentum to
address the balance (that I explain I see needs addressing, akin to pirate
radio + commercial broad
On 6/17/11 4:51 PM, Henry Story wrote:
In short we need to all work together in the semweb as a team, using
the tools we have built to do that. It's really not difficult to do. :-)
[1] video http://bblfish.net/blog/2011/05/25/
Yep!
+1000.
Working as a team has proven to be a little harder
On 6/17/11 4:30 PM, Henry Story wrote:
In that space we have foaf you may say. But nobody really bothered
making it potent. For example the viral part is missing: we only just
wrote up a paper on how to make friending easy (viral)
http://bblfish.net/tmp/2011/05/09/
So what the linked data com
type hierarchy" strikes me as being created with no sense, no
> logic, no system, no method, no any hint of ontology. If its "step up", then
> i don't know what might be step down :)
> Azamat Abdoullaev
> http://www.eis.com.cy
>
> - Original Message - From: &qu
So the internet is a country. In this country some may conform while others
may break the rules - of this country and/or of the country from you or they
have come. it's fun to break rules - we can listen to decent music for a
start.
We can also put it about that we are the bad asses. How cool is th
no sense, no
logic, no system, no method, no any hint of ontology. If its "step up", then
i don't know what might be step down :)
Azamat Abdoullaev
http://www.eis.com.cy
- Original Message -----
From: "Harry Halpin"
To: "Linked Data community" ; "
On 17 Jun 2011, at 17:36, Christopher Gutteridge wrote:
> Wave! I'm very much in the hacker community too. Get cool stuff done on hack
> days and so forth.
>
> My current hack:
> screen scraping the glastonbury festival site to get their entire programme;
> http://programme.ecs.soton.ac.uk/glas
On 17 Jun 2011, at 14:51, adasal wrote:
> Don't expect any support from that quarter. (Well apart from a few unhelpful
> scraps.)
>
> The question is how can the SemWeb academic community address these issues?
There is the hacker community too, btw. The academic community is looking to be
way
On 6/17/11 3:53 PM, Phil Archer wrote:
Dunno if the analogy is a perfect fit, but it feels to me as if
schema.org is a game changer that, in one way or another, we're going
to get used to having around.
It's a game changer because its given the entire Linked Data and
Semantic Web aspiratio
An interesting and thought provoking post, Harry, and close to my own in
many respects.
Strangely it reminded me of one of my previous lives. In 1983 I was
working for a radio station in Stoke on Trent (north English midlands).
It was a traditional local radio station with a duty to serve a di
Lin,
A couple of things.
Your quote says 'the Semantic Web academic community...' but you just
mention 'the SemWeb community...', so somehow I assume that for you the one
is synonymous with the other.
When you say 'are pushing potentially interested people away from joining
the effort' which effort
On 17 Jun 2011, at 21:13, Lin Clark wrote:
> >That's interesting. Was there anybody who pointed this out at the time?
>
> Yes. Most notably, Ian Hickson pointed it out in direct relation to RDFa and
> Microdata
> http://www.mail-archive.com/whatwg@lists.whatwg.org/msg11067.html
> http://wiki.wh
>
>
>>
>> That's interesting. Was there anybody who pointed this out at the time?
>
>
Or maybe this was sarcastic... if so, sorry for the misunderstanding :)
On 6/17/11 12:13 PM, Lin Clark wrote:
I don't want to start a fight on this list, there are already enough
of those going on and I have a feeling those are pushing potentially
interested people away from joining the effort. I just wanted to note
that yes, it has been pointed out.
We cannot
>
> >The fact of the matter is that the Semantic Web academic community has
> >had their priorities skewed to the wrong direction. Had folks been
> >spending time doing usability testing and focussing on user-feedback
> >on common problems (such as the rather obvious "vocabulary hosting"
> >problem
I noticed Steve's comment in this very civilised discussion without seeing
his details, and was going to confirm how much this reminds me of the way
CTO's and architect groups think.
Steve mentions an 'internal project', but I think there is a degree of
confusion about the nature of the domain we a
I'm sure that some of these points were relevant at some level, but I suspect
that's not the key reason.
At some point, the team working on the internal project would have to go to the
divisional CTO and/or CIO in charge of operations and ask permission to deploy
the code on the production syst
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
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
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
