Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful

HS wrote: "The recent discussions on this list were very much about how to avoid making distinctions unless you have to (Just-In-Time Distinctions?) So why are the above distinctions needed? Particularly with regard to this conversation."
It concerns your talks, going under the overpromising and undelivering title, "Philosophy and the Social Web", starting from the epithet "the web is now philosophical engineering". 
Missing the distinctions is leading to such poor online services as the schema.org's types.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Henry Story 
  To: AzamatAbdoullaev 
  Cc: semantic-web@w3.org ; public-lod@w3.org ; Harry Halpin ; adasal 
  Sent: Saturday, June 18, 2011 10:58 AM
  Subject: Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful




  On 18 Jun 2011, at 08:13, AzamatAbdoullaev wrote:


    HS: "I gave a talk on the philosophy of the Social Web if you are interested."
     http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083

    For the specifics of TBL's motto, "the web as a philosophical engineering", see Harry's article:
    http://www.apaonline.org/publications/newsletters/v07n2_Computers_04.aspx
    Some interesting assertions: "we are not analyzing a world, we are building it. We are not experimental philosophers, we are philosophical engineers." ; "online intelligence is generated through complex causal interaction in an extended brain-body-environment system"; "The Web is ...the creation and evolution of external representations in a universal information space".
    I'd extend: if the the world wide web is "a universal information space", the semantic/ontological web is a universal knowledge space.
    And we need avoid confusing four fields: philosophical engineering, philosophy of engineering, engineering philosophy, and engineering of philosophy.


  The recent discussions on this list were very much about how to avoid making distinctions unless you have to (Just-In-Time Distinctions?) So why are the above distinctions needed? Particularly with regard to this conversation.




    Azamat

    ----- Original Message -----
      From: Henry Story
      To: adasal
      Cc: Lin Clark ; Bjoern Hoehrmann ; Linked Data community ; Semantic Web
      Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 8:48 PM
      Subject: Re: Hackers - Re: Schema.org considered helpful




      On 17 Jun 2011, at 19:27, adasal wrote:


        That said the hacker is a various beast,


      Indeed, hackers are not angels. But the people on this list should get back to hacking or work together with open source projects to get initial minimal working pieces embedded there. WebID is one; foaf is another, pingback, access control, ...
      Get the really simple pieces working.


        and I wonder if this sort of thing can really be addressed without overarching political/ethical/idealogical concerns. It's tough. 


      It all fits together really nicely. I gave a talk on the philosophy of the Social Web if you are interested.
       http://www.slideshare.net/bblfish/philosophy-and-the-social-web-5583083


      Hackers tend to be engineers with a political attitude, so they are more receptive to the bigger picture. But solving the big picture problem should have an easy entry cost if we want to get it going. 


      I talked to the BBC but they have limited themselves to what they will do in the Social Web space as far as profile hosting goes. Again, I'd start small. Facebook started in universities not that long ago.


      Henry




      Social Web Architect
      http://bblfish.net/






  Social Web Architect
  http://bblfish.net/