Actually I think my points remain. Would twitter want to use those definitions that have been formed in the context of a (non live) archive? Adam On 16 April 2010 10:42, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote: > +cc: Ed Summers > > On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Chris Sizemore > <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk> wrote: > > the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a > tweet > > is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs are > needed > > to fully rep a tweet... > > so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the linked data version of Twitter > > data, a la db/wiki[pedia] ... > > Based on > http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2010/04/how-tweet-it-is-library-acquires-entire-twitter-archive/ > it looks like the Library of Congress might be taking on that job. And > on the strength of the LCSH RDF work, it might even be feasible... > > Dan >
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 09:46:53 UTC