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

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