Re: Social Web WG Agenda for 6 October 2015

On 7 October 2015 at 15:06, Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org
> wrote:

> elf Pavlik writes:
>
> > On 10/07/2015 05:16 AM, Kevin Marks wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Melvin Carvalho <
> melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 7 October 2015 at 04:01, Aaron Parecki <aaron@parecki.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Melvin, I don't know if you actually read any of the discussion around
> >>>> the post-type-discovery proposal, but the -1 votes were not actually
> >>>> downvoting the algorithm's existence, they were -1s because they had
> >>>> clarifying questions. Since this was brought up within minutes of the
> end
> >>>> of the call, I'm not surprised to see the -1s. Anyway, there is now
> another
> >>>> week to review the document and we will discuss it on next week's
> call. I
> >>>> encourage you to join the call if you have an opinion on this.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the clarification, Aaron.  I dont have a problem with the
> >>> algorithm's existence.  Im sure it could be useful.  It's just not REC
> >>> track.
> >>>
> >>> This problem is already solved via inferencing.  IMHO not a good use of
> >>> time discussing whether or not to reinvent the wheel.  Just use
> existing
> >>> RECs.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Can you link me to some data that shows where this particular problem is
> >> already solved by a REC?
> > You can find nice illustration of reasoning over rdfs:domain here:
> > * http://www.slideshare.net/EUCLIDproject/querying-linked-data/60
> > * http://www.euclid-project.eu/modules/course2 (video to accompany those
> > slides)
> >
> > RDFS definition which implies an entity on which one uses property
> > mo:member to have type mo:MusicGroup
> > *
> >
> https://github.com/motools/musicontology/blob/master/rdf/musicontology.n3#L1658-L1669
> >
> > Normative definition in *W3C Recommendation*
> > * http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_domain
> >
> > Major dataset using MusicOntology
> > * http://linkedbrainz.org/
>
> Having read Tantek's spec, it looks like it serves a different purpose
> than this.  The above linked examples show a whole bunch of RDF data,
> and infer other things from the RDF data.  That seems to be a different
> problem.
>
> If I understand Tantek's proposal correctly, it looks like it's for the
> type of case where *none* of this information is available, say a simple
> blogpost submission type interface.  This might be used by a client,
> where the user isn't selecting a type because it isn't exposed by the
> user interface, or by some microformats to activitystreams / rdf
> conversion tool.  So I don't think these solve the same problem, despite
> using similar terminology.  So if I understand it right, this seems to
> be a nice heuristics-heavy way to get microformats stuff to convertable
> to ActivityStreams more easily, without having to restructure
> ActivityStreams itself.  That would be a good goal.  Tantek seemed to
> indicate my understanding of this is right.  I'd love clarity from him.
>

Yes, agree.  Would be good to get some clarity here.


>
> I also have some hesitance about whether or not this spec fits within
> the SocialWG charter, but I think it might be very useful, and might at
> least be something for the group to acknowledge.
>
> But if the above objections are because the w3c really does have
> algorithms that can solve this exact same problem of something that is
> relatively free of linked data contexts, then this might be worth
> raising, and please demonstrate!  If this is a "linked data does this
> right and microformats does this wrong", again, see my recent email: I'd
> like to keep these arguments out of the group; they can't be solved
> here.
>

That's an interesting point.  I think adding a single rel in HTML could
lead to inferencing, without any context.