W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > April 2010

Re: twitter's annotation and metadata

From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:26:39 +0100
Message-ID: <g2ve8aa138c1004160226gdf5801b3y32ecdebe83d495f9@mail.gmail.com>
To: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
Cc: public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
twitter have a hard task as they have to take into account usage. The
community have evolved their own, inconsistent, usage - for instance this
greenhaze <http://twitter.com/greenhaze>
#ff<http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ff>big up:
@_Jameslloyd <http://twitter.com/_Jameslloyd>
@brightgreenscot <http://twitter.com/brightgreenscot>
@faisalislam <http://twitter.com/faisalislam>
@peopleandplanet <http://twitter.com/peopleandplanet>
@krishgm <http://twitter.com/krishgm>
compared to
craftygreenpoet <http://twitter.com/craftygreenpoet> Quiz party manifesto
writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander. Join in now
http://bit.ly/9eYpSI *#38degrees* <http://twitter.com/search?q=%2338degrees>
#ukelection <http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ukelection>

Notice the #ff hash tag and the phrase 'big up:' in the first tweet as well
as the many references (@ tags).
So a popular sign #ff has been invented and there are different styles of
posting, of drawing attention.
The developers of a name space might have to take all of these issues into
account, for instance the range of intentions of posters of which 'drawing
attention' may just be one, or be a super set.  Or, alternatively, just
create a basic name space with a few, lose, defined entities?
I think that the problem would be to define a semantics that allows users to
continue to invent usage.
Or will invention be seen to peter out anyway as people settle on a few
useful 'tools' such as the #ff hash tag?

Of course, the other side of introducing semantics is that it could increase
the expressive scope of what is an incredibly restricted format. But twitter
might find that counter productive. The restriction, which is a product of a
lack of common symbols that might be used knowingly to extend it, is the
mother of invention. Often that invention lies in a sexual direction (or
products or money). With regard the sexual it extends into that realm well
because the mystery of not knowing is coupled with the necessity to invent
'something' on top of what is really a well known human area - the play of
ambiguity suits the subject matter making it seem racier than perhaps it
really is.

A formalism might destroy this though?


Adam Saltiel

On 16 April 2010 02:52, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hopefully everybody has heard that Twitter will release some annotation
> feature which will allow to add metadata to each tweet.
> I just read this blog post
> http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/15/twitter-annotations/
> <http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/15/twitter-annotations/>and the following
> caught my attention: "There aren’t any rules as to what can be in this
> metadata. YET. All the devs I’ve talked to say they expect Twitter to
> “bless” namespaces so the industry will have one common way to describe
> common things"
> I'm just wondering what people here think about this.
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 09:27:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:05 UTC