Re: twitter's annotation and metadata

This is all great stuff. So who can now go to Twitter and tell them that
their job has already been done...

Juan Sequeda
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com


On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote:

> Chris Sizemore 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] ...
>>
>
> Chris,
>
> The Twitter Linked Data Space already exists in a variety of fragments.
>
> Twitter as a medium for nano annotations (nanotations) was always an
> inevitability.
>
> You would be surprised as to what you would FIND at:
> http://uriburner.com/fct, on any given day, try it :-)
>
> As for Information Resource, in the context of the burgeoning Web of Linked
> Data, I believe Descriptor Resource is much clear. As for non-information
> resource, we have a "Referent" and its Name (via Generic HTTP URI).
>
> "Resource" overloading will always thwart comprehension of Linked Data.
>
> Links:
>
> 1.
> http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/understanding-linked-data-via-eav-model-based-structured-descriptions-- recent presentation that is basically "Linked Data" the prequel via EAV
> Model focus (RDF as Data Model is not working, so lets stopping banging on
> that since its generally perceived as a Markup Language with a variety of
> Representation Formats)
> 2. http://twitpic.com/1g02q8/full -- Referent, Identifier, and
> Description/Sense (The Data Perception Trinity)
> 3. http://twitpic.com/1g03vo/full -- Referent, Identifier, and
> Descriptor/Sense Trinity as exploited via FOAF+SSL
>
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen       President & CEO OpenLink Software     Web:
> http://www.openlinksw.com
> Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
>
>
>>
>>
>> best
>>
>> Cs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com <mailto:
>> adam.saltiel@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>  twitter have a hard task as they have to take into account usage. The
>>> community have evolved their own, inconsistent, usage - for instance this
>>> tweet
>>> greenhaze <http://twitter.com/greenhaze> #ff <
>>> http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ff> big up: @_Jameslloyd <
>>> http://twitter.com/_Jameslloyd> @AlysFowler <
>>> http://twitter.com/AlysFowler> @brightgreenscot <
>>> http://twitter.com/brightgreenscot> @AskTheClimateQ <
>>> http://twitter.com/AskTheClimateQ> @faisalislam <
>>> http://twitter.com/faisalislam> @valerieoriordan <
>>> http://twitter.com/valerieoriordan> @peopleandplanet <
>>> http://twitter.com/peopleandplanet> @*38_degrees* <
>>> http://twitter.com/38_degrees> @krishgm <http://twitter.com/krishgm>
>>> compared to
>>> craftygreenpoet <http://twitter.com/craftygreenpoet> Quiz party
>>> manifesto writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander. Join in
>>> now http://bit.ly/9eYpSI *#38degrees* <
>>> http://twitter.com/search?q=%2338degrees> #ukelection <
>>> http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ukelection>
>>>
>>>
>>> Notice the #ff hash tag and the phrase 'big up:' in the first tweet as
>>> well as the many references (@ tags).
>>> So a popular sign #ff has been invented and there are different styles of
>>> posting, of drawing attention.
>>> The developers of a name space might have to take all of these issues
>>> into account, for instance the range of intentions of posters of which
>>> 'drawing attention' may just be one, or be a super set.  Or, alternatively,
>>> just create a basic name space with a few, lose, defined entities?
>>> I think that the problem would be to define a semantics that allows users
>>> to continue to invent usage.
>>> Or will invention be seen to peter out anyway as people settle on a few
>>> useful 'tools' such as the #ff hash tag?
>>>
>>> Of course, the other side of introducing semantics is that it could
>>> increase the expressive scope of what is an incredibly restricted format.
>>> But twitter might find that counter productive. The restriction, which is a
>>> product of a lack of common symbols that might be used knowingly to extend
>>> it, is the mother of invention. Often that invention lies in a sexual
>>> direction (or products or money). With regard the sexual it extends into
>>> that realm well because the mystery of not knowing is coupled with the
>>> necessity to invent 'something' on top of what is really a well known human
>>> area - the play of ambiguity suits the subject matter making it seem racier
>>> than perhaps it really is.
>>>
>>> A formalism might destroy this though?
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Adam Saltiel
>>>
>>>
>>> On 16 April 2010 02:52, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com <mailto:
>>> juanfederico@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>    Hopefully everybody has heard that Twitter will release some
>>>    annotation feature which will allow to add metadata to each tweet.
>>>
>>>    I just read this blog
>>>    post http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/15/twitter-annotations/
>>>
>>>    and the following caught my attention: "There aren’t any rules as
>>>    to what can be in this metadata. YET. All the devs I’ve talked to
>>>    say they expect Twitter to “bless” namespaces so the industry
>>>    will have one common way to describe common things"
>>>
>>>    I'm just wondering what people here think about this.
>>>
>>>
>>>    Juan Sequeda
>>>    +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
>>>    www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk
>> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal
>> views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
>> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
>> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in
>> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
>> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>> Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>