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 10:46:24 +0100
Message-ID: <r2qe8aa138c1004160246s5c90350nd9adbf5b98013393@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
Actually I think my points remain. Would twitter want to use those
definitions that have been formed in the context of a (non live) archive?

Adam

On 16 April 2010 10:42, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:

> +cc: Ed Summers
>
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Chris Sizemore
> <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
> > the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a
> tweet
> > is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs are
> needed
> > to fully rep a tweet...
> > so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the linked data version of Twitter
> > data, a la db/wiki[pedia] ...
>
> Based on
> http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/
> it looks like the Library of Congress might be taking on that job. And
> on the strength of the LCSH RDF work, it might even be feasible...
>
> Dan
>
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 09:46:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:26 UTC