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

Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <1396120241.15625.YahooMailBasic@web122902.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, public-egovernance@w3.org, public-egovernance-contrib@w3.org
Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Thad and Niklas,

Apologies to all for the quantum entanglements, um, cross posting.

One schema.org is enough, sorry Niklas.  My point was that eCommerce and "Web Scale" are related in linear fashion, and an Ontology needs to reflect strict, non-proprietary procedure for revisionist history making. The Accountants are counting cumulative petite cash as <owl:Things /> and "suggesting" that <foaf:Person /> follows the same geometric ratios as any other commercial product.

The problem is catastrophe accounting.  Everyone knows a successful product launch is due to an equilibrium of brilliant outside Advertising and the CEO's equally brilliant choice of donuts at early planning meetings ...  W3C Standards ? Pffft...

http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/LinkedOpenData.jpg

I can't afford a Smart Phone, so I ordered up a 5.1 Magnitude Earthquake in Southern California to illustrate my point (Sorry about the broken windows, BTW, glad no foaf:Person were hurt). In a year from now, the Accounting Department is going to say this cost a lot of money ... some multiple of $36,500.25 to be exact (Looking for change for a quarter).  This is 113.10% due to an outside Agency Advertising so I'm going to fire 100% of the in-house people and sue for the other (n x $13.10).  Only 24.6% of the Marketing Department appears worthless.  I can fire them, but I can't shoot them.  That would be wrong.  But, it makes perfect sense in Social Networking terms if King Henry II had scrawled "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" on Thomas à Becket's FaceBook Page.

When geologists say "5.1 Magnitude" they are saying that the Earthquake "cost" in energy equals 100% x [log(5.1 Magnitude,base 2) + log(accounting cost 1 year later, base 2)]. Note that 100% is also -1*log(2/4 (years / reports per year), base 2).  You get what you pay for.

The partial fractions are fixed:
41.16% The Advertiser's fault
27.44% The Salesman's fault
31.41% Unidentified somebody else
==========================
100.00% Somebody else's fault or Somebody else's Ontology.

That's why I say that one schema.org is "enough Ontology" to handle 50% of the blame for catastrophe, but if you want to handle 100% of the probability you have to compute the dimensions "Web Scale" differently.

--Gannon
  
--------------------------------------------
On Fri, 3/28/14, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships
 To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
 Cc: "Niklas Lindström" <lindstream@gmail.com>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
 Date: Friday, March 28, 2014, 6:45 PM
 
 It's too bad Niklas'
 opinions are in the minority...he could have his OWN
 Schema.org with thoughts like that. :)
 
 On Fri, Mar 28, 2014
 at 3:17 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
 wrote:
 
 My 2
 cents:
 
 
 
 When schema.org was new, I mentioned
 to Dan B. that conflicting viewpoints between the sponsors
 might be a problem.  He agreed that I confused him entirely
 (I get that a lot).  From a business perspective, a Library
 is a rooftop of a building which collects fines for over due
 books.  From a semantic perspective a Library is a
 storehouse of Knowledge (in book title Collections) some of
 which may never be used.
 
 
 
 
 The difference is that a shopkeeping business must be able
 to make change when they open for business in the morning.
  The contents of the cash drawer at noon are a computed
 zero.  With this in mind,
 
 1) the absolute "Right" of an Advertiser to do
 business 24 x 7, Equals
 
 2) the absolute "Right" of an eCommerce to do
 business 24 x 7, Equals
 
 3) the absolute "Right" of a Merchant to keep
 change overnight, and compute the morning's (ante
 meridian) profits at noon if they wish to know the number.
 
 
 
 Reporting bogus profit numbers in the Annual Report is
 absolutely not right in all three cases.
 
 
 
 The speed of the advertising business is constant with
 respect to the frequency of reporting.
 
 The speed of the eCommerce business is constant with respect
 to the frequency of reporting.
 
 The speed of shopkeeping is constant with respect to the
 frequency of reporting.
 
 The speed of light is constant, but Physicists don't
 talk about that as having been just discovered this morning
 when the shop doors opened.  Instead they note that a Nurse
 has an absolute "Right" to wake you up to take a
 pill but only while you are in Hospital. An Advertiser or an
 eCommerce Merchant has no right to play Nurse or play alarm
 clock.
 
 
 
 
 An Ontology (and the Gold Standard for Linked Data) is a
 balanced (average) view of the profits reported in the
 Annual Report and numerically about 13% below the Advertiser
 or eCommerce Merchant perspective and 25% above the
 Shopkeeper perspective.  The numbers come from the the
 tangent half-angle substitution across the computed zero
 ((Time=Now)=petite cash).  When you query the Web you query
 100% of an average of that which does not mean 50% of the
 products sold or 50% of the products advertised.
 
 
 
 
 http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/LinkedOpenData.jpg
 
 
 
 You just have to be careful about the logic labels:
  Advertising is useful.  Data Products are useful. Spam is
 infinitely useless.  Your friends are useful therefore they
 are not Spam and not (only) Data Products.
 
 
 
 --Gannon
 
 
 
 3:24 AM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
 
  wrote:
 
 <snip/>
 
  > Alternative suggestion
 from the spectator seat:
 
 
 
  In real-world situations
 with organizations coming
 
  from a different perspective, theory often clashes with
 
  practicality. The "lesser of two evils" dictum
 
  would be to first make sure that something gets
 published,
 
  even if it is semantically fuzzy. But, that's a
 
  perma-thread for a different day :)
 
 
 
  Cheers,Niklas 
 
 
 
 <snip />
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 -- 
 -Thad+ThadGuidry
 Thad on
 LinkedIn
 
 
 
 
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 19:11:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:38 UTC