W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2010

Re: twitter's annotation and metadata

From: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 10:37:18 +0100
Message-ID: <D1B5241E-365F-4E8E-B5BB-0636B00C5A31@bbc.co.uk>
To: "adasal" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Cc: "Juan Sequeda" <juanfederico@gmail.com>, "public-lod" <public-lod@w3.org>, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
the main problem is gonna be the cognitive dissonance over whether a  
tweet is an information or non-information resource and how many URIs  
are needed to fully rep a tweet...

so, who's gonna volunteer to publish the linked data version of  
Twitter data, a la db/wiki[pedia] ...



On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com> wrote:

> twitter have a hard task as they have to take into account usage.  
> The community have evolved their own, inconsistent, usage - for  
> instance this tweet
> greenhaze #ff big up: @_Jameslloyd @AlysFowler @brightgreenscot  
> @AskTheClimateQ @faisalislam @valerieoriordan @peopleandplanet  
> @38_degrees @krishgm
> compared to
> craftygreenpoet Quiz party manifesto  writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver  
> Letwin and Danny Alexander. Join in now http://bit.ly/9eYpSI  
> #38degrees #ukelection
> Notice the #ff hash tag and the phrase 'big up:' in the first tweet  
> as well as the many references (@ tags).
> So a popular sign #ff has been invented and there are different  
> styles of posting, of drawing attention.
> The developers of a name space might have to take all of these  
> issues into account, for instance the range of intentions of posters  
> of which 'drawing attention' may just be one, or be a super set.   
> Or, alternatively, just create a basic name space with a few, lose,  
> defined entities?
> I think that the problem would be to define a semantics that allows  
> users to continue to invent usage.
> Or will invention be seen to peter out anyway as people settle on a  
> few useful 'tools' such as the #ff hash tag?
> Of course, the other side of introducing semantics is that it could  
> increase the expressive scope of what is an incredibly restricted  
> format. But twitter might find that counter productive. The  
> restriction, which is a product of a lack of common symbols that  
> might be used knowingly to extend it, is the mother of invention.  
> Often that invention lies in a sexual direction (or products or  
> money). With regard the sexual it extends into that realm well  
> because the mystery of not knowing is coupled with the necessity to  
> invent 'something' on top of what is really a well known human area  
> - the play of ambiguity suits the subject matter making it seem  
> racier than perhaps it really is.
> A formalism might destroy this though?
> Best,
> Adam Saltiel
> On 16 April 2010 02:52, Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hopefully everybody has heard that Twitter will release some  
> annotation feature which will allow to add metadata to each tweet.
> I just read this blog post http://scobleizer.com/2010/04/15/twitter-annotations/

> and the following caught my attention: "There aren’t any rules as to 
>  what can be in this metadata. YET. All the devs I’ve talked to say  
> they expect Twitter to “bless” namespaces so the industry will  
> have one common way to describe common things"
> I'm just wondering what people here think about this.
> Juan Sequeda
> +1-575-SEQ-UEDA
> www.juansequeda.com


This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Received on Friday, 16 April 2010 09:37:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:17 UTC