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

Re: Reuse

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 10:33:51 +0000
To: Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>
CC: Denny Vrandecic <vrandecic@googlemail.com>, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>, "<public-lod@w3.org>" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|d8a7363c3f2f9661b93605fec4b52865o5KBXq02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|6301B872-EEA8-442C-8ACE-5AF460655622@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Thanks Barry, I think I understand now - and you are right.
(But of course we are all right as well, it depends on the angle, which is why this list can be so helpful, if painful.)

One answer might have been a proxy server that the consumer can use to map from one vocab to another (we actually do this, rather than putting some of the inference in.)
And this could be a public thingy.
But it still it wouldn't solve your problem.

While the big players only use the vocabs they care about for consuming, it is incumbent on a publisher who wants visibility to publish so that each of them can consume.
This is a similar situation to bing and google and yahoo all requiring different site maps or search markup or whatever.
And to the need to support IE7 and browser differences as well if you still want to.

So I don't think it is specifically a SemWeb/Linked Data problem; it is more akin to a SEO problem.
But as I say, you are right, it is a problem.
I have it myself, when I know that I want my data to be consumed by certain other apps that only know about certain ontologies.
And we need to be careful not to over claim and suggest we have the solution to it at this moment (unless the big boys change their ways).

But perhaps we do have a Linked Data story along the lines of what has been discussed - which is what the well-behaved small boys in Linked Data do, and what the Big Boys should do (and hopefully will, unless schema.org or fb becomes all-encompassing, which is quite possible.).

Best
Hugh

On 21 Jun 2012, at 10:42, Barry Norton wrote:

> 
> Sorry to keep being negative (about the "light" semantics side of things here), but it's not a competition.
> 
> If you want Facebook integration, you have to use the og: properties.
> 
> If you want Twitter integration, you have to use the twitter: properties (as well).
> 
> (Presumably) if you want the search engine integration, you have to use the schema: properties (on top of that).
> 
> No one's going to say: Google has the largest user base therefore we're going to just use schema.org; Web content creators want all the integrations.
> 
> On the vendor side, if one were going to win you might hope (putting RDF/Linked Data aside, and despite not being invited to the party) that Twitter would have adopted schema.org (the Red Book among Denny's analogies). But they haven't.
> 
> 
> I'm surprised by the answers saying "we know how to do that". Yes, we know how to do that; we often reuse and we can employ reasoning when we don't.
> 
> Out there, though, in the real world they seem a good year or two away from realising that we were right.
> 
> Barry
> 
> 
> On 21/06/2012 10:22, Denny Vrandecic wrote:
>> On 21 Jun 2012, at 09:38, Juan Sequeda wrote:
>> 
>>> This vocabulary competition is a good thing! 
>>> 
>> Yep, competing standards have always proven to be a good thing, just think of the internet protocols before the Web, Hypertext standards before HTML, imperial units of measurements vs SI, RSS vs RSS, microdata vs RDFa, VHS vs Betamax, Blueray vs DVD HD,  all for diversity! :)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 

-- 
Hugh Glaser,  
             Web and Internet Science
             Electronics and Computer Science,
             University of Southampton,
             Southampton SO17 1BJ
Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045
Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2012 10:34:28 UTC

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