W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-schemaorg@w3.org > November 2016

Re: Trump vs. Ontology

From: Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2016 13:22:53 +0000
Message-ID: <CAM1Sok1dw=FDwc7qdEOhYqPf+B9asZQr=POnbXrNRLKbCp8oeg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Cc: "schema.org Mailing List" <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
Hi Dan,

Understood with thanks. With the betterment of hindsight i now wish i had
better reflected my views as stimulated by media to me (as an Australian)
to reflect upon the principle in which i was attempting to consider rather
than the perceived foreign decisions and implications. Certainly my
viewpoint has been engendered via socialGraphs, to great concern, whilst
also being considerate of the trends pertaining to event and considerations
of the broader illustration this provides to otherwise less discussed
social considerations.

 I have been considering the civics.schema.org works for sometime.  These
considerations haven't led to much of a useful result, since the discussion
about toilets, however; i now wonder what the most appropriate context of
this framework could be?

Perhaps human.schema.org as to better denote the aspects relating to what
it means to be humans.   Surely Civics is a counterpart, yet perhaps not
the predicate?

A counterpart of these considerations likely impacts /Person  in a variety
of ways.  We don't really have properties such as 'belief' other sentiment
analysis related considerations.   perhaps therein, for Microsoft benefit
means might exist for contextualising emoticons might become a counterpart
of such frameworks.

I seek your sage wisdom.

Seemed to me we have a problem of involuntary echo-chambers that is
unintended, therefore indicating a need for supporting cultural ontology in
addition to the commercially beneficial sorts..

Tim.H.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 at 00:01 Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

>
> This is not a good forum to talk about any specific politician's
> relationship with factual data.
>
> We could discuss in general terms designs e.g. for fact checking markup,
> such as the ClaimReview construct, http://schema.org/ClaimReview but I
> encourage that consideration to be in terms of reviewing any/all claims
> rather than those of any specific actor on the political scene, however
> topical they may be. For example, can ClaimReview markup be extended or
> augmented with other structures to help make more explicit evidential
> claims in science? See also
> https://twitter.com/cshirky/status/756569741020377088?lang=en
>
> It would also be good to encourage the use of schema.org and related
> approaches (e.g. DCAT) for markup up factual datasets, as something that
> feeds into data-driven decision making. But I encourage folk here to just
> get on with positive works rather than filling the Schema.org community
> group forum with yet more speculation about Donald Trump. There are plenty
> of other places to do that.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
> On 12 November 2016 at 05:54, Timothy Holborn <timothy.holborn@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Interesting question.
>
> Has anyone considered the values trump stands for in association to the
> available structured data offered by Schemaorg?  My point being about the
> role of structured data in decision making practices.
>
> Where schema / data isn't available, perhaps it blindsides whatever is
> being used to evaluate community sentiment...?
>
> Perhaps also, those using the works don't understand how they work...
>
>
>
Received on Saturday, 12 November 2016 13:23:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 12 November 2016 13:23:37 UTC