- From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 18:10:11 +0100
- To: AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
- Cc: semantic-web@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
- Message-ID: <BANLkTimS4BpSbf1e_Vp1pgRJF3PsCNwLgw@mail.gmail.com>
Yes, it's an utter nonsense. It has nothing whatsoever to do with semantics, semweb. It is just a fancy catalogue, remarkably similar to what is being developed at Yell (Yellow pages) to mediate directory listings, especially for mobile clients. It is a way for the big three to cut into the directory listing business by having companies self serve (certainly further undermining the Yell business model). I should point something out in this regard. Yell having millions (internationally many millions) of listings on their books whereas the big three do not. This is a commercially significant fact. What we have before us is a commercial war. Every time someone shouts for schema.org they are lending credence to the big three in this battle. - Although this is not why I am down on it, I think I make my reasons plain elsewhere. In short, it is basically nothing else than a commercial battle between commercial organisations that people are unwittingly being suckered into. Adam On 17 June 2011 17:45, AzamatAbdoullaev <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy> wrote: > On Friday, June 17, 2011 12:09 AM, Harry wrote: > "According to the argument of decentralized extensibility, schema.org*exactly* what Google/Yahoo!/Microsoft are supposed to be doing. It's a > straightfoward site that clearly for how the average Web developer can use > structured data in markup to solve real-world use-cases and provides > examples. That's the entire vision of the Semantic Web, let a thousand > ontologies bloom with no central control. > AA: This reminds me a political rhetoric. "Letting a hundred flowers > blossom and a hundred schools of thought contend is the policy for promoting > progress in the arts and the sciences and a flourishing socialist culture in > our land." > As there is a political center and peripheries, central government and > local government, there is a core ontology and multiple ontologies. > HH: Schema.org is not a threat. It's an opportunity to step up. Good luck > everyone! > AA: In real, its a threat, to intelligence and ontology, as well as to the > committed and dedicated, bringing their good to the field, from Ontolog > Forum and SW Forum. > I am leaving aside the value of rdf or rdfa, or any other SW schemas. Let's > just look at the definition and organization of the key notion, schema, > promoted by the "fantastic triple": "The schemas are a set of 'types', each > associated with a set of properties. The types are arranged in a hierarchy". > Why types, and not kinds, forms, sorts, classes, or categories. Why each > type is associated with a set of properties, instead of being marked by a > common distinct characteristics or quality. Is it related to the notion of > abstract data types and abstraction in computing. Or, is it comes from the > type theory dealing with type systems and hierarchy of types. Hardly... > Here is a simple but clear WordNet's definition: "schema is an internal > representation of the world; an organization of concepts and actions to be > revised by new information about the world." > Make a note, schemas are about the world. Now look at the "taxonomy": the > most generic type is Thing. Its closest children are: > a.. CreativeWork > b.. Event > c.. Intangible > d.. Organization > e.. Person > f.. Place > g.. Product > Frankly, i met and read a plenty of taxonomies, classifications, > categorizations, typologies, sortings, arrangement and groupings. Even > following that "thousand ontologies movement", they made a real dog's > breakfast of their job. Just look how Intangible is divided: Enumeration, > Language, Offer, Quantity, Rating Structured Value. > The entire "type hierarchy" strikes me as being created with no sense, no > logic, no system, no method, no any hint of ontology. If its "step up", then > i don't know what might be step down :) > Azamat Abdoullaev > http://www.eis.com.cy > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Halpin" <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> > To: "Linked Data community" <public-lod@w3.org>; "Semantic Web" < > semantic-web@w3.org> > Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 12:09 AM > Subject: Schema.org considered helpful > > > I've been watching the community response to schema.org for the last >> bit of time. Overall, I think we should clarify why people are upset. >> First, there should be no reason to be upset that the major search >> engines went off and created their own vocabularies. According to the >> argument of decentralized extensibility, schema.org *exactly* what >> Google/Yahoo!/Microsoft are supposed to be doing. It's a >> straightfoward site that clearly for how the average Web developer can >> use structured data in markup to solve real-world use-cases and >> provides examples. That's the entire vision of the Semantic Web, let >> a thousand ontologies bloom with no central control. >> >> The reason people are upset are that they didn't use RDFa, but instead >> used microdata. One *cannot* argue that Google is ignoring open >> standards. RDFa and microdata are *both* Last Call W3C Working Drafts >> now. RDFa 1.0 is a spec but only for XHTML 1.0, which is not what most >> of the Web uses. Microdata does have RDF parsing bugs, but again, most >> developers outside the Semantic Web probably don't care - they want >> JSON anyways. >> >> Form what I understand from tevents where Rich Snippets team has >> presented is that RDFa is simply too complicated for ordinary web >> developers to use. Google has been deploying Rich Snippets for two >> years, claim to have user-studies and have experience with a large >> user-base. This user-driven feedback should be taken on board by both >> relevant WGs obviously, HTML and RDFa. Designing technology without >> user-feedback leads to odd results (for proof, see many of the fun and >> exiciting "httpRange-14" discussions). Which is also why many >> practical developers do not use the technology. >> >> But realistically, it's not the RDFa WG's job to do user-studies and >> build compelling user-experiences in products. They are only a few >> people. Why has the *hundreds* of people in the Semantic Web community >> not done such work? >> >> The fact of the matter is that the Semantic Web academic community has >> had their priorities skewed to the wrong direction. Had folks been >> spending time doing usability testing and focussing on user-feedback >> on common problems (such as the rather obvious "vocabulary hosting" >> problem) rather than focussing on things with little to no support >> with the world outside academia, then we probably would not be in the >> situation we are in today. Today, major companies such as Microsoft >> (oData) and Google (microdata) are jumping on the "open data" >> bandwagon but finding the RDF stack unacceptable. Some of it may be a >> "not invented here" syndrome, but as anyone who has actually looked at >> RDF/XML can tell you, some of it is hard-to-deny technical reasoning >> by companies that have decided that "open data" is a great market but >> do not agree with the technical choices made by the Semantic Web >> stack. >> >> This is not to say good things can't come out of the academic >> community - the *internet* came out of the academic community. But >> seriously, at some point (think of the role of Netscape in getting the >> Web going with the magic of images) commercial companies enter the >> game. We should be happy now search engines are seeing value in >> structured data on the Web. >> >> I would suggest the Semantic Web community take on-board the >> "microdata" challenge in two different ways. First of all, start >> focussing on user-studies and user experience (not just visual >> interfaces, the Semantic Web has more than its share of user-hostile >> visual interfaces). It's harder to publish academic papers on these >> topics but possible (see SIGCHI), and would help a lot with actual >> deployment. Second, we should start focussing more on actual empirical >> data-driven feedback, both on what parts of RDF are being used and >> common mistakes. With indexes such as the Billion Triple Challenge and >> Sindice's index, we can actually do that with the Semantic Web. Third, >> why not actually try to get RDF - or "open data more broadly" into the >> browser in usable manner? Tabulator may be a step in the right >> direction, but the user experience needs work. Fourth, why not start a >> company and try to deliver products to actual end-users and give that >> feedback to the wider community and W3C WGs (and if you already work >> for an actual SemWeb company, please send your feedback from user >> studies to the WG before Last Call)? I believe the Semantic Web >> research community - which still has tons of funding and lots of >> passion - can make the Web better. >> >> Schema.org is not a threat. It's an opportunity to step up. Good luck >> everyone! >> >> cheers, >> harry >> >> P.S.: Note this opinions are purely personal and held as an individual. >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 17:10:49 UTC