- From: Juan Sequeda <juanfederico@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2010 11:26:43 -0500
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Cc: Chris Sizemore <Chris.Sizemore@bbc.co.uk>, public-lod <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <t2qf914914c1004160926tf0269603t62b6d982cd8421fc@mail.gmail.com>
This is all great stuff. So who can now go to Twitter and tell them that their job has already been done... Juan Sequeda +1-575-SEQ-UEDA www.juansequeda.com On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:11 AM, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>wrote: > Chris Sizemore wrote: > >> 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] ... >> > > Chris, > > The Twitter Linked Data Space already exists in a variety of fragments. > > Twitter as a medium for nano annotations (nanotations) was always an > inevitability. > > You would be surprised as to what you would FIND at: > http://uriburner.com/fct, on any given day, try it :-) > > As for Information Resource, in the context of the burgeoning Web of Linked > Data, I believe Descriptor Resource is much clear. As for non-information > resource, we have a "Referent" and its Name (via Generic HTTP URI). > > "Resource" overloading will always thwart comprehension of Linked Data. > > Links: > > 1. > http://www.slideshare.net/kidehen/understanding-linked-data-via-eav-model-based-structured-descriptions-- recent presentation that is basically "Linked Data" the prequel via EAV > Model focus (RDF as Data Model is not working, so lets stopping banging on > that since its generally perceived as a Markup Language with a variety of > Representation Formats) > 2. http://twitpic.com/1g02q8/full -- Referent, Identifier, and > Description/Sense (The Data Perception Trinity) > 3. http://twitpic.com/1g03vo/full -- Referent, Identifier, and > Descriptor/Sense Trinity as exploited via FOAF+SSL > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen President & CEO OpenLink Software Web: > http://www.openlinksw.com > Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen > > >> >> >> best >> >> Cs >> >> >> >> >> On 16 Apr 2010, at 10:28 AM, "adasal" <adam.saltiel@gmail.com <mailto: >> 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 <http://twitter.com/greenhaze> #ff < >>> http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ff> big up: @_Jameslloyd < >>> http://twitter.com/_Jameslloyd> @AlysFowler < >>> http://twitter.com/AlysFowler> @brightgreenscot < >>> http://twitter.com/brightgreenscot> @AskTheClimateQ < >>> http://twitter.com/AskTheClimateQ> @faisalislam < >>> http://twitter.com/faisalislam> @valerieoriordan < >>> http://twitter.com/valerieoriordan> @peopleandplanet < >>> http://twitter.com/peopleandplanet> @*38_degrees* < >>> http://twitter.com/38_degrees> @krishgm <http://twitter.com/krishgm> >>> compared to >>> craftygreenpoet <http://twitter.com/craftygreenpoet> Quiz party >>> manifesto writers, Ed Miliband, Oliver Letwin and Danny Alexander. Join in >>> now http://bit.ly/9eYpSI *#38degrees* < >>> http://twitter.com/search?q=%2338degrees> #ukelection < >>> http://twitter.com/search?q=%23ukelection> >>> >>> >>> 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 <mailto: >>> 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 <http://www.juansequeda.com> >>> >>> >>> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk >> 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 16:27:19 UTC