Re: Socialnetworks of a person or organization

On 04/11/2014 10:22 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> In general abstract, There are "Feature -ery" things you can do on the
> Social Web that involve "a communication pathway to an Organization or
> Person"... that you cannot do with the Regular Web.  Some of that is now
> even being semi-modeled with the Actions proposal.... and knowing which
> URLs have a "communication" or "social pathway" will become an important
> distinction...versus those that allow little to no communication to an
> entity's presence on the web.
> I hope that makes sense to everyone... I'm sure by now, we all
> understand and know that we use Social Apps and Sites (Social Web) to
> engage and "communicate"...versus merely reading (Regular Web).
> The difference between the 2 is that one has the context of "allows a
> communication pathway to an Organization or Person"...versus those that
> are not constructed to really have communication to a Organization or
> Person".
it makes me think about
"A contact point for a person or organization"

> In Freebase, we wanted to keep that important distinction...and so opted
> to have a special property for Social Media Presence for any Thing
> (Topic in Freebase) ... which also supports the idea of a URI Template,
> btw...kinda cool to help with creating those parsing rules I mentioned
> before...
> Freebase only has the major Social Accounts in the URI Templates for
> them...(Google+, Twitter, Foursquare, MySpace, etc) but as everyone
> knows...there are now Thousands out there.
> For marketers and advertisers, there is a difference in the 2...or any
> one who cares...and I would refer to Aaron Bradley to discuss with the
> group that particular subtle difference.

Received on Friday, 6 June 2014 16:34:08 UTC