Re: Reuse

Who is in charge of the reasoning?

Given there is a repository of vocabulary mappings (equivalentproperty.org,
etc...), let applications that crawl and consume this data do the reasoning.

If the webmaster decides to use twitter:image, then it's up to the data
consumer to figure out that twitter:image = foaf:depiction.

This vocabulary competition is a good thing!

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 9:21 PM, Barry Norton <barry.norton@ontotext.com>wrote:

>
> No, as long as the primary consumers are Facebook and Twitter (and maybe
> Google, Yahoo, etc. if they ever see fit to actually consume schema.org),
> then Web page creators are going to have to cater to all of these
> 'simplifications' together, as there will be no reasoning, and that 'little
> bit of semantics' is going to create a bad taste.
>
> Point taken about our own inability to stop re-inventing the wheel
> (although at least we spend every week telling people how to stop doing so
> - at least I know I do).
>
> Barry
>
>
>
>
> On 20/06/2012 20:08, Hugh Glaser wrote:
>
>> Yes.
>> I think it is meant to happen at the consumer side.
>> The consumer initialises their store with appropriate equivalences and
>> sub-thingies for their purposes.
>> If you are building an app that expects only one of these, then you
>> aren't really building a Semantic Web app.
>> And ideally the app will extend the set as it finds equivalence stuff in
>> the wild.
>>
>> By the way, we also have (at least)
>> rdfs.'comment', dbpedia.'abstract', dc.'description',
>> dcterms.'description', core.'overview', jisc.'description',
>> resex.'detailed-description'
>> when the system is trying to pick up something to show as a description
>> of what I am looking at.
>> I realise I need to update the list :-)
>> I'll probably add your suggestions as well.
>> and I have been trying to work if I want fb: as well.
>>
>> Best
>>
>> On 20 Jun 2012, at 19:52, Aidan Hogan wrote:
>>
>>  On 20/06/2012 18:58, Barry Norton wrote:
>>>
>>>> Does the fact that Web users now need to mark up their pages with
>>>> *og:description*, *schema:description* /and/ *twitter:description* not
>>>> make anyone in those communities think that maybe /this/ one had a point
>>>> in the first place?
>>>>
>>>> And that maybe this proliferation is actually /harder /to manage than
>>>> dealing with (shock horror) multiple namespaces?
>>>>
>>> Did someone say reasoning?!
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Aidan
>>>
>>> P.S.,
>>> http://vimeo.com/28667500
>>> http://vimeo.com/28667555
>>>
>>>
>
>