Re: geo location tutorial cut

Hausenblas, Michael wrote:
>> In the examples I point to the dbpedia entry for the Washington Monument as the definitive *subject* I am describing.  There is also a Washington Monument web page from the US Government.  Why is that not a more appropriate subject? 
>>     
>  
> It is no about what is more appropriate ;) It is about 'about WHAT do I want to say something'.
>  
> If you say: 'http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument>  comprises 13 images' is completely different compared to 'http://dbpedia.org/page/Washington_Monument <http://dbpedia.org/page/Washington_Monument>  comprises sandstone'.
>  
> In the first case you describe a property of an HTML page (an information resource) in the second case you talk about an obelisk, a real-world entity (a non-information resource).
>   

Okay - I think I understand the distinction.  And to some people that 
distinction might even be meaningful.  But what about joe-myspacer?  All 
he wants to do is say joe knows some_band.  I am certain joe is going to 
say:


    myspace:joe foaf:knows myspace:some_band .


is that wrong?  I dont think it is.  It is misleading, since what he is 
really saying litereally is "joe's myspace page knows some_band's 
myspace page".  But to the great unwashed - our target audience - is 
that distinction even meaningful?  Heck, some of those people might 
think their myspace page *is* their identity!  But if it is meaningful, 
how can we help our audience to appreciate the distinction?  And more 
importantly, how can we help our audience to use the *correct* subjects 
and objects?

-- 
Shane P. McCarron                          Phone: +1 763 786-8160 x120
Managing Director                            Fax: +1 763 786-8180
ApTest Minnesota                            Inet: shane@aptest.com

Received on Saturday, 28 June 2008 16:33:30 UTC