- From: Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 22:19:33 -0500
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Hi Martin, On 4/30/2014 7:39 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: > Dear Mike: > > If you critize the proposal for deferring part of the semantic alignment to the consumer, No, I did not. >and claim that an approach that allows preserving that much of meta-data as can be easily provided by sites is useless, No, I did not. >then you must also claim that RDF is useless. No, I certainly did not, and have been a (I think) very public advocate for RDF for many years. [1] >RDF does not bringt more to the table than a portable mechanism for exchanging very lightweight conceptual structures. Still, the whole Web of Data and Linked Open Data Cloud celebration, in essence only uses RDF from the Semantic Web technology stack. >So if you say that a proposal that allows preserving a few core data modeling primitives in Web data is not an advancement, No, I did not. >you must also say that all enthusiasm over existing work on the Web of Data and the Linked Open Data Cloud is a hollow, useless celebration, for there is not semantic reconcilitation of the underlying data schemas. This assertion of straw man positions, Martin, is truly not becoming of your position in this community. If you track back this thread, I merely "+1" to a specific statement by Peter that one purpose of schema.org should be to provide homogeneous mechanisms for overcoming the natural heterogeneity of natural human expressions. I explicitly called out this statement and removed all other statements in that thread. There can be no doubt as to what, and only what, I was expressing my opinion about. It is true that I declined your challenge to provide a counter proposal to your own proposal based on my "+1", but, frankly, I should be free to express quite specific opinions while I pursue my day job. I happen to be busy, and this is not my current emphasis. From this point, you went ballistic, and have been making assertions about my positions and the consequences of not following your own. One assertion was that we could not provide cross-mappings to external vocabularies (even proprietary), which I believe we may readily do so as separate work products not infringing upon original copyrights. This is still a matter of great IP import, which you did not refute. Second, in a related thread to Dan you stated: "Let me say it that clear: Either we provide a mechanism like this that allows exposing relatively lightweight property-value pairs for product features in schema.org, or product feature data will not be marked up by Web sites for the next five years to come." Really? What is the basis for this supreme arrogance of position? As best as I can tell, schema.org is doing just fine, though is experiencing growing pains. Over the years I have had no truck with you, and really do not understand this extreme response on your part. +1 Mike [1] http://www.mkbergman.com/483/advantages-and-myths-of-rdf/ > > Martin > > On 01 May 2014, at 02:14, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> On 4/30/2014 7:01 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: >>> Mike: >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On 4/30/2014 6:03 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/30/2014 01:43 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sure, if you have considerable resources, you may be able to make sense >>>>> of the heterogeneity, but I thought that the idea behind schema.org was >>>>> to put some homogeneity on information, i.e., precisely to move away >>>>> from the difficult aspects of human languages. >>>>> >>> >>> Do you have a counter proposal on how we could allow manufacturers of products to mark-up their product feature data with schema.org? >>> >> >> Are you suggesting that I need to have a counter proposal in order to comment on a public forum? >> >> I am doing what I can to embrace schema.org in our ongoing semantic efforts. I plan to continue to comment when appropriate on matters brought to this forum. Hopefully, on occasion, we may even contribute back a bit to the substance of schema.org and its interoperability with other aspects of the Web. >> >> Thanks, Mike >> >>> Have a look at typical page types: >>> >>> • http://www.bestbuy.com/site/apple-iphone-5c-16gb-cell-phone-white-at-t/1722018.p (go to "Specifications") >>> • http://www.nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Digital-slr-Cameras/25492/D3200.html (go to "Tech Spec") >>> • http://www.bose.com/controller?url=/shop_online/digital_music_systems/bluetooth_speakers/soundlink_mini/index.jsp (go to "Details") >>> >>> In particular the Nikon camera is a nice one. >>> >>> eClass spent more than 15 years on trying to standardize the properties for products, and they still only cover a small part of product types (39,000 to date) and respective properties (16,000). It is not feasible to standardize product properties at Web scale nor to expect Web sites at scale to be able to map their local data collections to such a standard. >>> >>> By the way, the mission statement of schema.org is not "to put some homogeneity on information" nor to make the Semantic Web a reality, but instead [1]: >>> >>> "This site provides a collection of schemas that webmasters can use to markup HTML pages in ways recognized by major search providers, and that can also be used for structured data interoperability (e.g. in JSON). Search engines including Bing, Google, Yahoo! and Yandex rely on this markup to improve the display of search results, making it easier for people to find the right Web pages. >>> Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data. On-page markup enables search engines to understand the information on web pages and provide richer search results in order to make it easier for users to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable new tools and applications that make use of the structure. >>> A shared markup vocabulary makes it easier for webmasters to decide on a markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. So, in the spirit of sitemaps.org, search engines have come together to provide a shared collection of schemas that webmasters can use. >>> >>> " >>> >>> Note the part "Many sites are generated from structured data, which is often stored in databases. When this data is formatted into HTML, it becomes very difficult to recover the original structured data. Many applications, especially search engines, can benefit greatly from direct access to this structured data." >>> >>> This is exactly what the proposed extension allows. >>> >>> >>> Martin >>> [1] http://schema.org/ >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> e-business & web science research group >>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >>> >>> e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de >>> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >>> skype: mfhepp >>> twitter: mfhepp >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01 May 2014, at 01:46, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On 4/30/2014 6:03 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/30/2014 01:43 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sure, if you have considerable resources, you may be able to make sense >>>>> of the heterogeneity, but I thought that the idea behind schema.org was >>>>> to put some homogeneity on information, i.e., precisely to move away >>>>> from the difficult aspects of human languages. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> __________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Michael K. Bergman >>>> CEO Structured Dynamics LLC >>>> 319.621.5225 >>>> skype:michaelkbergman >>>> http://structureddynamics.com >>>> http://mkbergman.com >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman >>>> __________________________________________ >>>> >>> >>> Best wishes / Mit freundlichen Grüßen >>> >>> Martin Hepp >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------- >>> martin hepp >>> e-business & web science research group >>> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen >>> >>> e-mail: martin.hepp@unibw.de >>> phone: +49-(0)89-6004-4217 >>> fax: +49-(0)89-6004-4620 >>> www: http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group) >>> http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal) >>> skype: mfhepp >>> twitter: mfhepp >>> >>> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data! >>> ================================================================= >>> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/ >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 01 May 2014, at 01:46, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> On 4/30/2014 6:03 PM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On 04/30/2014 01:43 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Sure, if you have considerable resources, you may be able to make sense >>>>> of the heterogeneity, but I thought that the idea behind schema.org was >>>>> to put some homogeneity on information, i.e., precisely to move away >>>>> from the difficult aspects of human languages. >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> __________________________________________ >>>> >>>> Michael K. Bergman >>>> CEO Structured Dynamics LLC >>>> 319.621.5225 >>>> skype:michaelkbergman >>>> http://structureddynamics.com >>>> http://mkbergman.com >>>> http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman >>>> __________________________________________ >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- __________________________________________ Michael K. Bergman CEO Structured Dynamics LLC 319.621.5225 skype:michaelkbergman http://structureddynamics.com http://mkbergman.com http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman __________________________________________
Received on Thursday, 1 May 2014 03:20:04 UTC