- From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
- Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 12:10:41 -0700 (PDT)
- To: Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com>, public-egovernance@w3.org, public-egovernance-contrib@w3.org
- Cc: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Thad and Niklas, Apologies to all for the quantum entanglements, um, cross posting. One schema.org is enough, sorry Niklas. My point was that eCommerce and "Web Scale" are related in linear fashion, and an Ontology needs to reflect strict, non-proprietary procedure for revisionist history making. The Accountants are counting cumulative petite cash as <owl:Things /> and "suggesting" that <foaf:Person /> follows the same geometric ratios as any other commercial product. The problem is catastrophe accounting. Everyone knows a successful product launch is due to an equilibrium of brilliant outside Advertising and the CEO's equally brilliant choice of donuts at early planning meetings ... W3C Standards ? Pffft... http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/LinkedOpenData.jpg I can't afford a Smart Phone, so I ordered up a 5.1 Magnitude Earthquake in Southern California to illustrate my point (Sorry about the broken windows, BTW, glad no foaf:Person were hurt). In a year from now, the Accounting Department is going to say this cost a lot of money ... some multiple of $36,500.25 to be exact (Looking for change for a quarter). This is 113.10% due to an outside Agency Advertising so I'm going to fire 100% of the in-house people and sue for the other (n x $13.10). Only 24.6% of the Marketing Department appears worthless. I can fire them, but I can't shoot them. That would be wrong. But, it makes perfect sense in Social Networking terms if King Henry II had scrawled "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" on Thomas à Becket's FaceBook Page. When geologists say "5.1 Magnitude" they are saying that the Earthquake "cost" in energy equals 100% x [log(5.1 Magnitude,base 2) + log(accounting cost 1 year later, base 2)]. Note that 100% is also -1*log(2/4 (years / reports per year), base 2). You get what you pay for. The partial fractions are fixed: 41.16% The Advertiser's fault 27.44% The Salesman's fault 31.41% Unidentified somebody else ========================== 100.00% Somebody else's fault or Somebody else's Ontology. That's why I say that one schema.org is "enough Ontology" to handle 50% of the blame for catastrophe, but if you want to handle 100% of the probability you have to compute the dimensions "Web Scale" differently. --Gannon -------------------------------------------- On Fri, 3/28/14, Thad Guidry <thadguidry@gmail.com> wrote: Subject: Re: How to avoid that collections "break" relationships To: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> Cc: "Niklas Lindström" <lindstream@gmail.com>, "public-hydra@w3.org" <public-hydra@w3.org>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>, "W3C Web Schemas Task Force" <public-vocabs@w3.org> Date: Friday, March 28, 2014, 6:45 PM It's too bad Niklas' opinions are in the minority...he could have his OWN Schema.org with thoughts like that. :) On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 3:17 PM, Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com> wrote: My 2 cents: When schema.org was new, I mentioned to Dan B. that conflicting viewpoints between the sponsors might be a problem. He agreed that I confused him entirely (I get that a lot). From a business perspective, a Library is a rooftop of a building which collects fines for over due books. From a semantic perspective a Library is a storehouse of Knowledge (in book title Collections) some of which may never be used. The difference is that a shopkeeping business must be able to make change when they open for business in the morning. The contents of the cash drawer at noon are a computed zero. With this in mind, 1) the absolute "Right" of an Advertiser to do business 24 x 7, Equals 2) the absolute "Right" of an eCommerce to do business 24 x 7, Equals 3) the absolute "Right" of a Merchant to keep change overnight, and compute the morning's (ante meridian) profits at noon if they wish to know the number. Reporting bogus profit numbers in the Annual Report is absolutely not right in all three cases. The speed of the advertising business is constant with respect to the frequency of reporting. The speed of the eCommerce business is constant with respect to the frequency of reporting. The speed of shopkeeping is constant with respect to the frequency of reporting. The speed of light is constant, but Physicists don't talk about that as having been just discovered this morning when the shop doors opened. Instead they note that a Nurse has an absolute "Right" to wake you up to take a pill but only while you are in Hospital. An Advertiser or an eCommerce Merchant has no right to play Nurse or play alarm clock. An Ontology (and the Gold Standard for Linked Data) is a balanced (average) view of the profits reported in the Annual Report and numerically about 13% below the Advertiser or eCommerce Merchant perspective and 25% above the Shopkeeper perspective. The numbers come from the the tangent half-angle substitution across the computed zero ((Time=Now)=petite cash). When you query the Web you query 100% of an average of that which does not mean 50% of the products sold or 50% of the products advertised. http://www.rustprivacy.org/2014/balance/LinkedOpenData.jpg You just have to be careful about the logic labels: Advertising is useful. Data Products are useful. Spam is infinitely useless. Your friends are useful therefore they are not Spam and not (only) Data Products. --Gannon 3:24 AM, Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com> wrote: <snip/> > Alternative suggestion from the spectator seat: In real-world situations with organizations coming from a different perspective, theory often clashes with practicality. The "lesser of two evils" dictum would be to first make sure that something gets published, even if it is semantically fuzzy. But, that's a perma-thread for a different day :) Cheers,Niklas <snip /> -- -Thad+ThadGuidry Thad on LinkedIn
Received on Saturday, 29 March 2014 19:11:17 UTC