W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2014

Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

From: Justin Boyan <jaboyan@google.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2014 15:56:18 -0400
Message-ID: <CABJSzUtXg-0t2=WwP1sXpn+NoiZ5KTy7MLzSrNv3HK5AfPjqxA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>
Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Thad,

What is the difference between the Social Web and the Regular Web?

Justin

On Friday, April 11, 2014, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

> Justin brings up the point that he likes and wants to keep sameAs with
> it's current definition of:
>
> URL of a reference Web page that unambiguously indicates the item's
> identity. E.g. the URL of the item's Wikipedia page, Freebase page, or
> official website.
>
> and extend that definition to also add , ", or official social accounts".
>
> Machine reading consumers (Data clients, Schema.org Stakeholders, Apps)
> will then need to add more complex rules to determine "this is a
> webpage.....or...this is a social account page".
>
> Again, I stand by my efforts to make the distinction between those 2
> ideas/concepts with a new property.
>
> So a Web Developer who is building apps around Schema.org (he's a
> consumer, just like the Stakeholders) has to know the difference between
> those 2, a social account, and an reference Web page entity url (where an
> entity url has no additional metadata about what KIND of entity it is until
> you inspect it further).  He has to create parsing rules, etc...just like
> the Stakeholders will need to do also.... because we decided to muddy the
> waters and mix 2 different kind of Things... and lump them into 1... using
> sameAs.
>
> I personally can make a quick leap in my brain to say... Oh this webpage
> reference URL for DanBri is talking about the same entity as the twitter
> account for DanBri...because my brain sees twitter/ ... but a computer has
> to be taught that twitter/ is a social type of account prefix... and there
> are THOUSANDS of those....so Data Consumers and Programmers will need to
> write potentially Thousands of rules to determine if a sameAs link is part
> of the Social Web or if it's part of the Regular Web, (probably not, but
> you get the point)
>
> I want to automatically have Web Developers help the Stakeholders,
> Machines, Apps, and Data Consumers....have to worry less and understand
> more.  Immediately so.  By simply letting Web Developers do the HARD
> WORK...which is really actually EASY for the Web Developers...since they
> are the source of the data !
>
> Machines, Apps, Data Consumers, will not be making a "quick" leap...but
> will have to apply additional rules to do so... and that, in this
> case...will be a bad thing....they will be making the rules...instead of
> letting the Web Developers (those little elves!!!) to do the damn easy work
> for the Stakeholders, by giving those elves a nice hammer tool (a special
> property) to fill in for "social accounts" versus "regular accounts" versus
> "regular Web page reference entity URLs"
>
> The idea is to make thinks clear (for Machines, Apps, Data
> Consumers)...and lumping reuse of sameAs will not provide distinction
> between the Social Web and the Regular Web.
>
> Again, +1 for having a separate property to hold special consideration for
> entities on the Social Web ... versus the Regular Web.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 11, 2014 at 11:35 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:
>
>  On 4/11/14 12:03 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> On 4/11/14 11:42 AM, Justin Boyan wrote:
>
> I'm going to +1 Dan's first post on this thread, where he suggested
> reusing sameAs for this purpose and not introducing a new top-level
> property.
>
>  sameAs already exists to allow linking to a reference page for an
> entity, like its Wikipedia page, Freebase page, or website (DNS registry
> page). The social sites motivating the 'hasAccount' proposal -- Facebook,
> Twitter, G+, LinkedIn, etc. -- can equally be viewed as catalogs of
> entities. The issue of who controls the data for that entity on the site is
> a slippery issue that wouldn't be captured in the account vs. sameAs
> distinction anyway.
>
>  In fact, sameAs is actually clearer semantically than 'hasAccount':  an
> organization like the BBC with many Twitter accounts might be tempted to
> list all of them under 'hasAccount', whereas sameAs more clearly limits the
> desired link to just the top-level account for the BBC as a whole. (Twitter
> accounts for suborganizations of the BBC would be better modeled via sameAs
> links from entities corresponding to those suborganizations.)
>
>  I don't see any particular semantic gain from { BBC hasAccount
> twitter.com/BBC } compared to { BBC sameAs twitter.com/BBC }.
>
>  Whereas, I'm concerned that webmasters will become ever more confused
> when they have to worry about hasAccount alongside the existing sameAs,
> url, and @id on every single schema.org type.
>
>  My $0.02.
> Justin
>
> Justin,
>
> I assumed "account" and my suggested "hasAccount" denoted actual "account
> ownership" oriented relations i.e., relationship properties that determine
> how two entities are associated. In short, my entry into this thread was
> all to do with providing counter points to some arguments about unambiguous
> vs ambiguous entity denotation, using HTTP URIs.
>
> Of course I wouldn't be suggesting "account" or "hasAccount" as
> identifiers for coreference relations.
>
> 'same as', 'sameAs', :sameAs, <http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs><http://www.w3.org/2002/07/owl#sameAs>,
> are different kinds of identifiers that denote age-old coreference
> relations. The only issue is whether inference and reasoning on these
> relations is scoped to:
>
> 1. humans
> 2. machines
> 3. both.
>
> Hope this clarifies my position :-)
>
>
> Just to close the loop re., comments above. Here is a more readable link
> to a document that describes the owl:sameAs relation [1].
>
> [1]
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/www.w3.org/2002/07/owl%01sameAs
> -- owl:sameAs relation
> [2]
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl%23sameAs&graph=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2002%2F07%2Fowl-- ditto but with faceted navigation over relations, as an interaction
> option .
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen	
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profil
>
> --
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry <https://www.google.com/+ThadGuidry>
> Thad on LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/>
>
Received on Friday, 11 April 2014 19:56:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:39 UTC