W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > January 2012

refining UC3

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2012 12:48:41 -0500
To: public-rdf-wg <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1326304121.2199.220.camel@waldron>
Sorry I lost my temper in the meeting today.   I agree this
endorsement/disagreement use case is both (1) a holy grail / hallmark of
Semantic Web discussions since the 90s, and (2) not widely implemented.
I was perhaps offended at folks disrespecting the holy relic.  :-)

It's very close to the phenomenally popular "Like" and "+1" buttons, but
the thing that's being endorsed in those cases isn't a set of
assertions/triples, in the cases I know of.  With Facebook, it's
explicitly a website, song, album, playlist, radio station, movie,
episode, tv_show, article, book, or profile [1].   With Google, I don't
know what it is; I imagine it's a Resource (in the REST sense, not the
RDF sense).

So...   do people know of work using RDF to express endorsement or
disagreement other RDF triples?   I don't, but I'm terrible at
remembering things like that.

I'm not actually sure UC3 requires any different features from UC2,
although it does have a different feel -- closer to hand authoring -- so
I'm not all that attached to including it.   While, I said it angrily, I
really am fine with a majority-rules WG vote to accept/reject UC3.

Are there other use cases that have this hand-authoring feel, where
folks need to say things about g-snaps?

    -- Sandro

[1] http://ogp.me/
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2012 17:50:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:47 GMT