- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 16:29:52 +0100
- To: public-lod@w3.org
On 6/20/11 4:16 PM, Joe Presbrey wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 6:28 AM, Kingsley Idehen<kidehen@openlinksw.com> wrote: >>> Adding hash keys do not exist (and/or aren't supported) at upstream >>> sources, changing/masking hosts, or otherwise *mangling* the URIs to >>> the data breaks the link of Linked Data. >>> Its high time to handle application/json (even Facebook!), link our >>> data, and share our libraries! > and build your apps! http://data.fm/ > >> Facebook will do it once opportunity cost is palpable. Ditto everyone else, >> in the mean time we have use patterns like: owl:shameAs to coax them into >> what's inevitably coming next. > No, Facebook *already* did it and cool URIs *do not change*. Their > graph API is quite excellent. No need for shame here -- let us work together > to link this data now and move on. Facebook have released structured data in graph form. They've done so in the Information Space dimension and its absolutely a great contribution. owl:shameAs is really about saying: I've made a URI for an object in your data space, and I am exploiting its inherent SDQ at your expense. The "shame" (tongue in check) comes from fact that said entity more than likely hasn't made a Linked Data URI because they are waiting for a concrete business case etc.. In a sense, its about saying: I am eating your lunch and here's how. Thus, use the Name I've minted, and at the very least you'll reduce business model erosion etc.. Again: owl:shameAs is old humor (from me) about Linked Data granularity, business models, opportunity costs, and lunch. Don't take owl:shameAs literally :-) > -- 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 Monday, 20 June 2011 15:30:28 UTC