W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2012

Re: Reuse

From: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:21:24 +0100
Message-ID: <4FE222B4.90105@ontotext.com>
To: public-lod@w3.org

No, as long as the primary consumers are Facebook and Twitter (and maybe 
Google, Yahoo, etc. if they ever see fit to actually consume 
schema.org), then Web page creators are going to have to cater to all of 
these 'simplifications' together, as there will be no reasoning, and 
that 'little bit of semantics' is going to create a bad taste.

Point taken about our own inability to stop re-inventing the wheel 
(although at least we spend every week telling people how to stop doing 
so - at least I know I do).

Barry



On 20/06/2012 20:08, Hugh Glaser wrote:
> Yes.
> I think it is meant to happen at the consumer side.
> The consumer initialises their store with appropriate equivalences and sub-thingies for their purposes.
> If you are building an app that expects only one of these, then you aren't really building a Semantic Web app.
> And ideally the app will extend the set as it finds equivalence stuff in the wild.
>
> By the way, we also have (at least)
> rdfs.'comment', dbpedia.'abstract', dc.'description', dcterms.'description', core.'overview', jisc.'description', resex.'detailed-description'
> when the system is trying to pick up something to show as a description of what I am looking at.
> I realise I need to update the list :-)
> I'll probably add your suggestions as well.
> and I have been trying to work if I want fb: as well.
>
> Best
>
> On 20 Jun 2012, at 19:52, Aidan Hogan wrote:
>
>> On 20/06/2012 18:58, Barry Norton wrote:
>>> Does the fact that Web users now need to mark up their pages with
>>> *og:description*, *schema:description* /and/ *twitter:description* not
>>> make anyone in those communities think that maybe /this/ one had a point
>>> in the first place?
>>>
>>> And that maybe this proliferation is actually /harder /to manage than
>>> dealing with (shock horror) multiple namespaces?
>> Did someone say reasoning?!
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Aidan
>>
>> P.S.,
>> http://vimeo.com/28667500
>> http://vimeo.com/28667555
>>
Received on Wednesday, 20 June 2012 19:21:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:40 UTC