- From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 09:51:52 +0200
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Is annotating IRs is of *any value practical and role today* ? Anything of value and core interest to wikipedia, imdb, bestbuy, bbc, geonames, rottentomatoes, lastfm, facebook, whatever. is a NIR. We are talking people, products Everything on the LOD cloud (for what it matters) its all NIR Even pictures, comments, and text are easiy seen and BEST INTERPRETED as NIR they're not just the bytes they're composed of, they're the full record of their creation, the concept of message. a facebook picture is a full record of content, comments, tags, multiple resolutions etc. The mere stream OF BYTES (the IR) IS JUST A DeTAIL that if it REALLY needs to be annotated, ... it can. no problem, with proper attributes "hasResolution, hascopyright" ok i guess that refers to a IR then. Image (NIR), hasResolution, hasCopyright, andHeyThisIsTheDownloadUrl (your IR url here) So the proposal is to forget immediately the whole distinction and anything else than a simple 200: * Only return 200, * As a default, clients known that they're dealing with Non IR * if you really have to annotate some IR for very low lever purposes then you do it anyway with proper attributes/ontologies .. which clients will know and act accordingly. And we're back into reality, you're compatible with opengraph, schema.org, I apologize for starting a new thread but i feel the discussion is very easily skewed by the fact that those who have time to answer often are the most prone to make rules as complicated as "it needed" and to accept them as such. But this is not the way the world goes. Or that anything that's meant to reach the world as large can be. Gio
Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 07:52:49 UTC