- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 20:59:27 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/19/11 5:56 PM, 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? > > Put differently, are they conflating things i.e., leaving the beholder to make the distinction outside AWWW. Yes, they are, but purely because this effort is Information Space dimension based :-) Time for a video [1]. Links: 1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA -- imaging the 10th dimension -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Sunday, 19 June 2011 19:59:52 UTC