Re: Squaring the HTTP-range-14 circle [was Re: Schema.org in RDF ...]

I thought forever that if we see iniquities we are duty-bound to stand
in the way.

But that don't seem to change anything.

Let the crap rain forth, if you really need to make sense of it the
blokes on this list will do it.

Activity is GOOD, no matter how idiotic.

Decisions made on very different premises than anyone around here would promote.

Sorry, I'm of the opinion that the Web approach is the winner. Alas it
also seems lowest common denominator.

Cheers,
Danny.

On 19 June 2011 19:36, Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net> wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:58, Nathan wrote:
>
>> Nathan wrote:
>>> Henry Story wrote:
>>>> On 19 Jun 2011, at 18:27, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> but dont be surprised as  less and less people will be willing to listen as more and more applications (Eg.. all the stuff based  on schema.org) pop up never knowing there was this problem... (not in general. of course there is in general, but for their specific use cases)
>>>>
>>>> The question is if schema.org makes the confusion, or if the schemas published there use a DocumentObject ontology where the distinctions are clear but the rule is that object relationships are in fact going via the primary topic of the document. I have not looked at the schema, but it seems that before arguing that they are inconsistent one should see if there is not a consistent interpretation of what they are doing.
>>> Sorry, I'm missing something - from what I can see, each document has a number of items, potentially in a hierarchy, and each item is either anonymous, or has an @itemid.
>>> Where's the confusion between Document and Primary Subject?
>>
>> Or do you mean from the Schema.org side, where each Type and Property has a dereferencable URI, which currently happens to also eb used for the document describing the Type/Property?
>
> Well I can't really tell because I don't know what the semantics of those annotations are, or how they function. Without those it is difficult to tell if they have made a mistake. If there is no way of translating what they are doing into a system that does not make the confusion, then one could explore what the cost of that will be to them. If the confusion is strong then there will be limitations in what they can express that way. It will then be a matter of working out what those limitations are and then offering services that allow one to go further than what they are proposing. At the very least the good thing is that they are not bringing the confusion into the RDF space, since they are using their own syntax and ontologies.
>
> There may also be an higher way to fix this so that they could return a 20x (x-some new number) which points to the document URL (but returns the representation immediately, a kind of efficient HTTP-range-14 version) So there are a lot of options. Currently their objects are tied to an html document. What are the json crowd going to think?
>
> In any case there is a problem of translation that has to be dealt with first.
>
> Henry
>
> Social Web Architect
> http://bblfish.net/
>
>



-- 
http://danny.ayers.name

Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 18:03:44 UTC