Re: strange identifiers in schema.org

Well, I had thought that schema.org was not the wild west of the web, but 
instead was some sort of a walled garden where things were more regimented.

Certainly it is impossible to keep all glitches out of even small vocabularies 
like schema.org but I am certainly surprised at the lack of expressed guiding 
principles.  I'm still hoping that the promised better documentation will 
produce same.


I am perfectly happy swimming in troubled waters where one has to be vigilant 
about just what sort of data sources and information organizations one pays 
heed to, but I was hoping that schema.org was different.

peter

PS:  I have the same sort of sentiments with respect to Freebase, by the way, 
it's just that I've been looking at schema.org more than Freebase at the moment.


On 11/07/2013 10:40 AM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hello Peter

[...]

> That said, and knowing enough of you to figure how you feel when looking 
> into them, other problems you point at (lack of documentation, semantic 
> glitches etc) will always be present in this scruffy-work-in-progress called 
> "Web semantics" (read : fuzzy, plural, inconsistent etc). I'm sure you will 
> ever ever fight it with all your will and strength given where you come 
> from, but I'm afraid this battle has been lost for quite a while now. As Pat 
> Hayes told me a while ago "My ivory tower has been seriously shaken those 
> days, waters of real world are slowly rising around us." Time to learn 
> swimming in troubled waters ...
>
> Best regards
>
>

Received on Thursday, 7 November 2013 18:56:44 UTC