W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 06:12:04 -0400
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=4ZRt-B2Z+8_UPd=2xwJstgErLLw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Cc: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
On Sunday, June 12, 2011, Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com> wrote:
> David, as you know, it is trivial to distinguish in representation the difference between an information object and a person. I don't understand why you keep repeating this misinformation.
> -Alan
> It is trivial to distinguish between an information resource and the resource it talks about

There is no "if". In the below you are talking about matters other
than being able to make the distinction.

> if you are 1) developing a custom system under your control for your own needs, which is not extensible and does not have to integrate code published by developers with a different knowledge base than you

Please give me some evidence for this. My experience (not
insignificant) is otherwise.

> -and- 2) do not have end users who you have to educate in the distinction between an info resource and an "other web resource" so that they can effectively add content to your system.

Again, this strikes me as speaking from very little experience. I
spend a good deal of my time collaboratively developing ontologies and
working with users of them. I've yet to encounter a person who didn't
understand the difference between a book about Obama and Obama.

> However, it is not trivial to add this distinction when you are working in an extensible system which you do not control

It depends on the manner in which the system is made extensible.
Architecture and good design matters. However, It is this attitude
that has led, in part, to the prulgation of schema.org as a closed

 > or when you do not have the resources to invest in reeducation
camps to change the way end users and other developers think.

As an educator, in part, I do not consider educating people to require
investing in reeducation camps. In my opinion, if you want to build a
system by which data can be effectively aggregated and put to novel
use by machines (this is what I thought we were doing) then I think
you will fail if you think that will come by continuing to set no
standards for how these systems communicate meaning and what kind of
knowledge someone needs to have to work with them correctly. i cite
the experience of the last 50 years of computer technology as


> I invite anyone who disagrees and who believes this is trivial to actually try effectively communicating the distinction made by httpRange-14 to an outside technology community and to attempt the social change necessary to make it work consistently in practice.
> Best,Lin
Received on Sunday, 12 June 2011 10:12:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:29:54 UTC