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

Re: Schema.org in RDF ...

From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2011 11:14:53 +0100
Cc: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-Id: <4C659C88-EB6A-421F-A665-4CAE5FFE9DAB@deri.org>
To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>

Alan,


> 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.


Welcome to the real world.

Cheers,
	Michael
--
Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow
LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre
DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute
NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway
Ireland, Europe
Tel. +353 91 495730
http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
http://sw-app.org/about.html

On 12 Jun 2011, at 11:12, Alan Ruttenberg wrote:

> 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
> architecture.
>
>> 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
> evidence.
>
> -Alan
>
>
>
>>
>> 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 10:15:35 UTC

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