/irc-logs / freenode / #microformats / 2015-01-26 / end

Options:

Previous day, Next day

  1. # Session Start: Mon Jan 26 00:00:00 2015
  2. # Session Ident: #microformats
  3. # [00:01] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  4. # [00:20] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  5. # [01:18] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  6. # [01:38] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  7. # [02:46] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@tan1.corp.wikimedia.org)
  8. # [02:52] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  9. # [02:59] * Quits: gRegor` (~me@71.201.46.159) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  10. # [03:10] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  11. # [03:17] * Joins: KevinMarks_ (~KevinMark@c-67-164-14-200.hsd1.ca.comcast.net)
  12. # [03:17] * Quits: KevinMarks (~KevinMark@c-67-164-14-200.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  13. # [03:30] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  14. # [03:47] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  15. # [03:54] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@tan1.corp.wikimedia.org) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  16. # [04:38] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  17. # [04:52] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  18. # [04:52] * Joins: gRegor` (~me@71.201.46.159)
  19. # [05:31] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  20. # [05:33] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  21. # [05:45] * Quits: gRegor` (~me@71.201.46.159) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds)
  22. # [05:54] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
  23. # [07:28] * Quits: @tantek (~tantek@50-1-62-185.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com) (Quit: tantek)
  24. # [08:51] * Joins: kez_ (~quassel@inet2.evalesco.com)
  25. # [09:12] * Joins: tantek (~tantek@50-1-62-185.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com)
  26. # [09:12] * ChanServ sets mode: +o tantek
  27. # [10:41] * Joins: csarven (~csarven@84-73-123-134.dclient.hispeed.ch)
  28. # [10:41] <csarven> Can someone point me to why microformats2? For instance, what was at stake with microformats1 in for example hCard that needed a revisit for parsing? I'm sure this is documented somewhere. Would appreciate a pointer.
  29. # [10:50] <csarven> I should clarify: IIRC, in microformats, the storyline was to simplify authoring, and think of scripts later. In microformats2, however, the story appears to have changed a little i.e., authoring is slightly more complex or involved (depending on how you look at it), in order to improve how machines parse the information.
  30. # [10:50] <@tantek> csarven: yup - all documented at the "obvious" place :)
  31. # [10:50] <@tantek> http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2
  32. # [10:50] <Loqi> +1
  33. # [10:51] <@tantek> csarven - the "storyline" for microformats, was authors before parsers
  34. # [10:51] <@tantek> for microformats2, the basic question we asked was, could we make thing simpler for BOTH authors and parsers
  35. # [10:51] <@tantek> and that's what we ended up doing
  36. # [10:52] <@tantek> the first part of the microformats2 page is more like a spec now rather than "story"
  37. # [10:52] <@tantek> but the background is still there - let me get a fragment
  38. # [10:53] <@tantek> here we go: http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2#Background
  39. # [10:54] <@tantek> your questions "what was at stake with microformats1" - if you mean what were the problems - are documented there
  40. # [10:54] <@tantek> HTH and definitely let me know if you have any specific follow-ups - happy to improve the documentation accordingly
  41. # [10:55] <@tantek> (but am calling it a night soon - willl check the logs - or I'll be back in the morning PST)
  42. # [10:56] * Joins: adactio (~adactio@212.42.170.121)
  43. # [10:56] * ChanServ sets mode: +o adactio
  44. # [10:58] <csarven> tantek Thanks!
  45. # [10:58] <csarven> Perhaps that was wording. I didn't necessarily mean "problems". It was more about the cause/initiative to move towards microformats2.
  46. # [11:00] <csarven> re: "all microformats are simply an object with a set of properties with values." from http://microformats.org/wiki/microformats2#Background . That's pretty much EAV model. Which is used by RDF as well.
  47. # [11:01] <@tantek> nah - RDF complicates the model unnecessarily with basing it on "triples" http://microformats.org/wiki/triples
  48. # [11:01] <@tantek> there's no "pretty much" about it
  49. # [11:01] <@tantek> more like "ugly much"
  50. # [11:02] <csarven> http://microformats.org/wiki/linked-data is misleading :)
  51. # [11:02] <csarven> As well as /triples
  52. # [11:03] <csarven> In fact, it is very opinionated.
  53. # [11:03] <@tantek> nope - such challenges are based on tons of experience
  54. # [11:03] <csarven> "unnecessarily complicated" ? C'mon
  55. # [11:03] <@tantek> yes
  56. # [11:04] <@tantek> takes longer to explain = unnecessarily complicated
  57. # [11:04] <@tantek> anyway - no interest in arguing about RDF because that's a useless waste of time - since it's unnecessary
  58. # [11:04] <@tantek> it does seem to float some plumbing boats, but so does plenty of backend futzing
  59. # [11:04] <csarven> First of all, the problem space for LD is completely different than mf. It is misleading to suggest that LD/triples is "unnecessarily complicated" and that mf should be preferable.
  60. # [11:05] <@tantek> csarven: no who does LD bothers to actually document specific problem spaces with open research, so I categorically reject your statement
  61. # [11:05] <csarven> tantek This is not about arguing. We are discussing. I have championed mf for a long time and still do. So, I don't like being positioned somewhere as if I'm fighting against mf.
  62. # [11:05] <csarven> Supporting LD doesn't mean that I don't support mf.
  63. # [11:05] <@tantek> not saying you're fighting mf
  64. # [11:06] <@tantek> I'm saying that LD is a waste of time, that's a separate problem
  65. # [11:06] <csarven> Well, I disagree. LD solves problems that mf can't.
  66. # [11:06] <@tantek> plenty of people support both, that's their hobby
  67. # [11:06] <csarven> Neither is it that mf is intended to solve those problems either.
  68. # [11:06] <@tantek> csarven - well, when you find some actual scientific documentation of such problems then let me know
  69. # [11:07] <@tantek> because they're usually framed in terms of abstractions and what ifs, and but if I want tos
  70. # [11:07] <csarven> I and many would argue that SW/LD is more "scientific" than mf :)
  71. # [11:07] <csarven> It is not at all about what ifs.
  72. # [11:07] <@tantek> so that's the essence of the problem. I ask you for "research" (e.g. URLs pointing to), and you say you would "argue"
  73. # [11:07] <csarven> We have all sorts of data. Data is not only bound to what exists on Web pages that should be easy to author for Web developers. That's a very narrow POV.
  74. # [11:07] <@tantek> you offering to "argue" is "what ifs"
  75. # [11:08] <csarven> Well, how about we back up and try to back up the statement "unnecessarily complicated" scientifically?
  76. # [11:08] <csarven> Can you provide surveys?
  77. # [11:08] <@tantek> again, you're arguing hypotheticals, like I said, let me know when you have documented research about specific problems at a public URL, until then, you're wasting time with handwaving
  78. # [11:09] <csarven> I'm simply asking for documentation on "unnecessarily complicated".
  79. # [11:09] <@tantek> yup - microformats are useful (plenty of specific use-cases on the wiki), microformats solve those problems without any need for triples
  80. # [11:10] <@tantek> ergo, no need for concepts of triples for those use-cases
  81. # [11:10] <csarven> It is a strong claim. I'd like to know what type of research went into concluding that.
  82. # [11:10] <@tantek> ergo any use of triples would add *unnecessary* complexity
  83. # [11:10] <@tantek> triples vs. property: value
  84. # [11:10] <csarven> No, you are unfairly comparing the problem.
  85. # [11:10] <@tantek> nope, I'm comparing a documented problem
  86. # [11:10] <@tantek> vs. no documented problems that you need triples for
  87. # [11:10] <@tantek> the burden of proof is on needing triples, not on not needing them
  88. # [11:10] <csarven> What you are saying is that, given the problem space of mf, triples/LD complicates the problem. I'm saying that, well, that's not an accurate picture.
  89. # [11:11] <@tantek> I'm saying you have no picture
  90. # [11:11] <@tantek> you have no documented research of specific problems
  91. # [11:11] <@tantek> you have handwavings about what a picture could be
  92. # [11:11] <@tantek> like I said, let me know when you have URLs to specific documentation about specific problems / use-cases
  93. # [11:12] <@tantek> until then - you're just wasting time arguing
  94. # [11:12] <csarven> Documented problem? Based on what? Information based on the microformats wiki about LD? And that you conclude based on that documentation, LD is complicated?
  95. # [11:12] <csarven> Ok
  96. # [11:12] <@tantek> no - real world problems for users
  97. # [11:12] <csarven> You are repeating yourself. DRY.
  98. # [11:12] <csarven> You need to revisit your axioms.
  99. # [11:12] <csarven> "real world problems for users"
  100. # [11:12] <@tantek> occam's razor - triples/LD unnecessary
  101. # [11:13] <@tantek> until proven otherwise. hence burden of proof
  102. # [11:13] <csarven> I see. So, you arbitrarily come up with a simple view of what triples/LD is, .. then go ahead and document that in the wiki and call it a victory for mf?
  103. # [11:14] <@tantek> no it's more a defense against wasting time
  104. # [11:14] <@tantek> victories for mf havee nothing to do with LD being good or not
  105. # [11:14] <csarven> Why bother with the documentation on the alternative in the wiki any way?
  106. # [11:14] <@tantek> victories come from solving real world use-cases
  107. # [11:14] <csarven> mf is victorious in its own right.
  108. # [11:14] <@tantek> right
  109. # [11:14] <csarven> There is no need to bash the alternatives.
  110. # [11:14] <@tantek> the /triples etc. documentation is because people keep bringing them up
  111. # [11:14] <@tantek> like an FAQ
  112. # [11:14] <@tantek> so it's a summary answer
  113. # [11:15] <@tantek> and it's usually sufficient
  114. # [11:15] <csarven> Well, I appreciate your POV.
  115. # [11:15] <csarven> I agree, it is sufficient for many.
  116. # [11:15] <@tantek> there is actually a need to filter out crap
  117. # [11:15] <@tantek> in everything
  118. # [11:15] <@tantek> and filter out inefficiencies
  119. # [11:15] <csarven> But I disagree on the approach taken "against" LD
  120. # [11:15] <@tantek> it's a trivial debunking, that's all
  121. # [11:15] <@tantek> if you disagree - you can provide research that substantiates LD
  122. # [11:16] <@tantek> until then - there is no point to it
  123. # [11:16] <csarven> That's trivial. Data exists outside of Web pages that are not "common".
  124. # [11:16] <@tantek> if it's so trivial, point me to a URL to research
  125. # [11:16] <@tantek> barring that, the research doesn't exist, because it's not trivial, or the problems don't actually exist that *require* LD
  126. # [11:17] <csarven> You want me to point you to some research that says "data exists everywhere... not only on web pages"?
  127. # [11:17] <@tantek> no to specific such data
  128. # [11:17] <@tantek> that somehow has a specific aspect that *requires* LD
  129. # [11:17] <@tantek> point to actual research, not meta research
  130. # [11:18] <csarven> LD is a pretty good candidate. How about that? If there is an alternative approach (and often there and being argued) that can be compared.
  131. # [11:18] <csarven> That's an axiom.
  132. # [11:18] <@tantek> nah - you have no problems being solved, so it's just theoretical handwaving
  133. # [11:18] <@tantek> it's philosophy, not science
  134. # [11:19] <csarven> RDF is a a good candidate for the problem space. And it is based on EAV. .. Just as mf2. The fact that they differ on syntax/namespaces or not.. or whatever, it is a very minor
  135. # [11:19] <csarven> Are you serious?
  136. # [11:19] <@tantek> you sound like you're actually asking for extensible vocabulary though, not triples, by your referencing "data exists outside"
  137. # [11:19] <csarven> Do you expect CERN to output their data from LHC into Web pages?
  138. # [11:19] <csarven> (I'm not arguing about LD here.. but that data exists elsewhere and that needs to be captured and modelled..)
  139. # [11:19] <@tantek> so now you're approaching a problem statement - so that's better
  140. # [11:20] <@tantek> can you point to a URL documenting the specific problems of CERN needing to output the data from the LHC?
  141. # [11:20] <csarven> Uhm.. they already do! http://opendata.cern.ch/
  142. # [11:21] <csarven> And there is more to it. One can't expect all roads to lead to mf.
  143. # [11:21] <@tantek> that's a strawman
  144. # [11:21] <@tantek> no one said all roads
  145. # [11:21] <@tantek> I'm just saying I don't accept any "this is a solution!" statements without documentation of the problem
  146. # [11:21] <csarven> mf is not intended to deal with all those "problems". And that is perfectly fine. Just because mf can't, it doesn't mean that others are irrelevant or are "unnecessarily complex".
  147. # [11:22] <@tantek> still don't see any documentation of any such problems
  148. # [11:22] <@tantek> sorry - you're not providing *any* actual problem documentation
  149. # [11:22] <csarven> Well, if you want an occam's razor, then EAV, RDF are good candidates.
  150. # [11:22] <@tantek> therefore you can't argue about it
  151. # [11:22] <csarven> We are discussing!
  152. # [11:22] <csarven> You want me to address all your issue with URLs on the spot?
  153. # [11:22] <@tantek> nope, occam's razor is property:value works, don't need triples
  154. # [11:22] <@tantek> yes
  155. # [11:23] <csarven> Especially when you leave an unscientific statement like "unnecessarily complex" up on the wiki?
  156. # [11:23] <csarven> But then go ahead and argue for something scientific?
  157. # [11:23] <@tantek> if you can't back up your claims about problems with documentation of specific problems, your arguments are baseless
  158. # [11:23] <csarven> .. for LD?
  159. # [11:23] <csarven> C'mon.
  160. # [11:23] <@tantek> unnecessarily complex -> occam's razor
  161. # [11:23] <@tantek> already answered, quit asking same question
  162. # [11:23] <csarven> I've already explained to you that data exists everywhere. That's trivial. That's an axiom. Can we not agree to that?
  163. # [11:24] <@tantek> nope. document a speciifc problem.
  164. # [11:24] <@tantek> not some handwaving about data everywhere
  165. # [11:24] <csarven> We have a lot of data, and we want to "connect" this data with each other so we can have a interesting insights about societies, build better systems, make better decisions...
  166. # [11:25] <csarven> Ok.
  167. # [11:25] <csarven> That's *good enough*
  168. # [11:25] <@tantek> again you're speaking in generalities
  169. # [11:25] <csarven> Not at all.
  170. # [11:25] <@tantek> stop describing, and start providing URLs to documentation of specific research
  171. # [11:25] <csarven> Very concrete.
  172. # [11:25] <csarven> Did you skip over the whole Data Science trend nowadays?
  173. # [11:25] <@tantek> don't care. specific URL or stop talking.
  174. # [11:26] <csarven> You are asking me to justify the problem for the users for CERN's data.
  175. # [11:26] <csarven> .. practically.
  176. # [11:26] <csarven> :)
  177. # [11:26] <@tantek> "socieites", "systems", = generic
  178. # [11:26] <csarven> Okay, lets leave it at that.
  179. # [11:26] <@tantek> nothing specific
  180. # [11:26] <csarven> The moment you are tellin gme to stop talking ... well, there is no discussion.
  181. # [11:27] <@tantek> right, no point in any discussion since you cannot provide a specific URL to specific research about a specific problem
  182. # [11:27] <csarven> I think TimBL made a pretty good case about "linking data" 25 years ago aka Web.
  183. # [11:27] <@tantek> barring that, no need for tripls/RDF etc.
  184. # [11:27] <csarven> Do we need to revisit that?
  185. # [11:27] <@tantek> the web didn't need RDF/LD
  186. # [11:27] <@tantek> and succeeded without it
  187. # [11:27] <@tantek> more occam's razor
  188. # [11:27] <@tantek> thanks for the proof
  189. # [11:27] <csarven> Web didn't need HTML5+JS+Flash... either
  190. # [11:28] <csarven> Web succeeded because of HTML.
  191. # [11:28] <csarven> More generally about linking documents.
  192. # [11:28] <@tantek> yup - and the features added to HTML5 were all added one at a time based on documented use-cases
  193. # [11:28] <csarven> Linking "things" is a specialization of that.
  194. # [11:28] <@tantek> web succeeded because HTML was *simple*
  195. # [11:28] <csarven> Agreed.
  196. # [11:28] <@tantek> TimBL said so himself
  197. # [11:29] <csarven> Yes, and that he decided on HTML instead of something like TeX
  198. # [11:29] <@tantek> generalizing and building abstractions without a problem to solve is philosophy not sceince
  199. # [11:29] <csarven> But the point is that, HTML opened up the idea for linking stuff across the globe. I fyou have some data and put it up somewhere, we can link to it.
  200. # [11:29] <@tantek> here's the difference
  201. # [11:30] <@tantek> HTML5 audio and video tags - clear documented use-cases
  202. # [11:30] <@tantek> LD/RDF abstractions - no clear documented use-cases
  203. # [11:30] <csarven> I'm sorry to say but, I strongly dislike your position on mf being somehow "scientific", but that upper-case SW or LD is not.
  204. # [11:30] <@tantek> science involves documenting your problems, and research
  205. # [11:30] <@tantek> SW/LD advocates don't actually bother with that - they just invent stuff and prescribe it
  206. # [11:31] <@tantek> no homework, no showing of steps
  207. # [11:31] <@tantek> and frankly, there were areas where we didn't do enough documentation with microformats (classic) either
  208. # [11:31] <@tantek> and most of those failed
  209. # [11:31] <csarven> I will entertain your idea for a moment. But, have you heard of "stamp collecting"?
  210. # [11:31] <@tantek> we were not *strict* enough
  211. # [11:31] <@tantek> with asking for documented research
  212. # [11:32] <@tantek> the irony of LD advocates - they can't provide links to back up their statements
  213. # [11:32] <csarven> If mf was so "scientific", I'd expect a proper methodology. Starting from hypothesis and null hypothesis, and moving up. Certainly that's not the case. Did mf reject a null hypothesis somewhere? Is that in the wiki?
  214. # [11:32] <@tantek> yes!
  215. # [11:32] <csarven> mf is "stamp collecting" just as much as SW/LD/RDF
  216. # [11:33] <@tantek> http://microformats.org/wiki/process
  217. # [11:33] <csarven> Information Science.
  218. # [11:33] <csarven> Where is the hypothesis?
  219. # [11:33] <@tantek> you start with not needing anything
  220. # [11:33] <@tantek> and then documentation is the first step - of the problem etc.
  221. # [11:33] <@tantek> you're leading with hypothesis and that's your problem
  222. # [11:34] <@tantek> with science, you lead with *observation*
  223. # [11:34] <@tantek> i.e. research
  224. # [11:34] <@tantek> then you document it
  225. # [11:34] <csarven> That's an axiom. I'm looking for a hypothesis. And that at some point, mf rejected the null hypothesis and went along with the altnerative. Where is that mentioned clearly?
  226. # [11:34] <@tantek> only after you have documented observations do you go to a hypothesis
  227. # [11:34] <@tantek> that's scientific method 101
  228. # [11:34] <csarven> ".... hence, we reject the null hypothesis "
  229. # [11:34] <@tantek> LD/RDF advocates skipped the observation and documentation steps
  230. # [11:35] <@tantek> so thus, unscientific
  231. # [11:35] <csarven> What you are talking about is stamp collecting. Not some brute force testing.
  232. # [11:35] <csarven> tantek Like I said, where is the blurb on rejecting the null hypothesis in the mf wiki?
  233. # [11:36] <@tantek> scientific method doesn't need reject null hypothesis
  234. # [11:36] <@tantek> thus we don't need it
  235. # [11:36] <@tantek> we document existing real world user problems through observation
  236. # [11:36] <csarven> "All science is either physics or stamp collecting" -- Lord Rutherford
  237. # [11:37] <csarven> Thanks. So, again, mf is as "scientific" as SW/LD.
  238. # [11:37] <@tantek> nope because we document our problems
  239. # [11:37] <@tantek> and require it in our method
  240. # [11:37] <@tantek> http://microformats.org/wiki/process#Why.3F
  241. # [11:37] <csarven> Unless you want to show me that hypothesis, than we can classify mf taking on the "hard-science" approach.
  242. # [11:37] <@tantek> whereas SW/LD folks make up vocabularies first, then try to apply them
  243. # [11:38] <csarven> Ok. I stand by my position. I don't think we are disagreeing.
  244. # [11:38] <@tantek> it's ok - eventually made-up stuff without documented problems / use-cases whithers and falls by the wayside
  245. # [11:39] <csarven> They didn't come up with a vocab out of thin air. Surely that's based on observing patterns or needs. You may argue that their documentation sucks (and I won't necessarily disagree with that). However, it is wrong to suggest that they are somehow doing something that's not scientific.
  246. # [11:39] <@tantek> why are you assuming "based on observing patterns or needs"?
  247. # [11:39] <@tantek> that's your flaw
  248. # [11:39] <@tantek> I'm asking for proof in the form of a URL to documentation of observing patterns or needs
  249. # [11:39] <@tantek> but you're willing to accept it on faith
  250. # [11:39] <csarven> No, that's your flaw. Just because yo udon't know it, it doesnm't mean that it doesn't exist.
  251. # [11:39] <@tantek> so without that documentation I say it's a waste of time
  252. # [11:39] <csarven> That's a clear distinction to be made.
  253. # [11:40] <@tantek> it doesn't exist until evidence is provided
  254. # [11:40] <csarven> Personally, I am a pragmatic.
  255. # [11:40] <csarven> I don't see a flaw in there :)
  256. # [11:40] <@tantek> you're taking it on faith
  257. # [11:40] <@tantek> I'm saying I don't believe it until you give me a URL to the documentation
  258. # [11:40] <csarven> We all start with axioms.
  259. # [11:40] <@tantek> not how you do science sorry
  260. # [11:41] <@tantek> you start with observation and documentation
  261. # [11:41] <@tantek> philosophers start with axioms
  262. # [11:41] <@tantek> hence my point about SW/LD being philosophy, not science
  263. # [11:41] <csarven> You may not believe it because you haven't seen a documentation, yet, you come up with a belief that something is "unnecessarily complex" because that's ... occam's razor?
  264. # [11:41] <csarven> Do you realize how absurd that sounds?
  265. # [11:41] <@tantek> no that's the default
  266. # [11:41] <@tantek> without evidence, something is unnecessary
  267. # [11:42] <@tantek> do you know how absurd it is to suggest otherwise?
  268. # [11:42] <@tantek> to suggest you need something without evidence?
  269. # [11:42] <@tantek> that's called marketing
  270. # [11:42] <csarven> The fact that there are "observable" 65 billion triples + across ... is not some "philosophy". It exists. Deal with it.
  271. # [11:42] <@tantek> lol
  272. # [11:42] * Quits: csarven (~csarven@84-73-123-134.dclient.hispeed.ch) (Quit: csarven)
  273. # [11:43] * Joins: csarven (~csarven@84-73-123-134.dclient.hispeed.ch)
  274. # [11:43] <csarven> Sorry, ran out of battery :) ... And you need to go to bed :)
  275. # [11:44] <csarven> (if have not already)
  276. # [11:44] <csarven> Any way.. I appreciate the chat regardless
  277. # [11:45] <@tantek> csarven, again, I'll leave you with, why is it so hard for LINKed data advocates to actually provide LINKs to substantiate their arguments? ;)
  278. # [11:48] <csarven> I tried to explain.. but I probably didn't do a good job. I'm fairly certain that you are quite aware of the SW/LD position. I suspect that issues are not due to technical differences. Some of the arguments against SW/LD (from the mf position) has different roots - some of which I'm aware but that's not the point.
  279. # [11:48] <@tantek> this is not unique to SW/LD btw
  280. # [11:49] <csarven> So, when a debate arises, it is not essentially about the technical differences. It gets philosophical.
  281. # [11:49] <@tantek> most standards (web or otherwise) don't provide documentation of their problems and use-cases
  282. # [11:49] <@tantek> which means they get bloated and political
  283. # [11:49] <csarven> I agree.
  284. # [11:49] <@tantek> instead of simple and pragmatic
  285. # [11:49] <@tantek> SW/LD is just one example
  286. # [11:49] <@tantek> a specific example
  287. # [11:49] <@tantek> but there are many (most?) others
  288. # [11:49] <csarven> That's all valid. But, poor communication on that front doesn't equate to problem existing. Communicating well is an art.
  289. # [11:50] <csarven> So, don't let the SW/LD "research" "papers" get in the way.
  290. # [11:50] <@tantek> not even asking for good documentation
  291. # [11:50] <@tantek> just *some* real world documentation
  292. # [11:50] <@tantek> yeah the research paper problem
  293. # [11:50] <csarven> IMO, this is a solid documentation as it gets: http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
  294. # [11:50] <@tantek> the fact that they're not publishing on the web at stable URLs with open acccess
  295. # [11:51] <csarven> In there, I can see SW/LD/mf... all coexisting, and they do!
  296. # [11:51] <@tantek> can coexist doesn't mean must
  297. # [11:51] <@tantek> that's the point
  298. # [11:51] <@tantek> from a pragmatic minimalist viewpoint, everything must be justified
  299. # [11:51] <@tantek> not just by political statemetns like "coexist"
  300. # [11:52] <csarven> I think that's the point. What you just said.. Many see SW/LD as sufficiently justified.
  301. # [11:52] <@tantek> you're right that there's a lot of specific problems described in http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html
  302. # [11:52] <@tantek> every standard / spec developed is seen as sufficiently justified by "many"
  303. # [11:53] <@tantek> that doesn't mean they are actually justified, by documented research
  304. # [11:54] <@tantek> it would be an interesting exercise to extract the specific problems mentioned/described in http://www.w3.org/History/1989/proposal.html and document them at their own URLs
  305. # [11:55] <csarven> You know, many in the LD community disagree on what LD is too. There is an RDF-only camp vs. RDF is one of many.
  306. # [11:56] <@tantek> is that a syntax argument? or a model argument?
  307. # [12:03] <Loqi> [[to-do]] http://microformats.org/wiki/index.php?title=to-do&diff=64796&oldid=64630&rcid=101170 * Tantek * (+316) more documentation and research, extract from TimBL's 1989 proposal
  308. # [12:05] <@tantek> csarven thanks for the reminder about and URL for TimBL's paper and his documentation or at least referencing of specific use-cases
  309. # [12:07] <csarven> Essentially syntax on the surface but I would say both. Some view HTML/mf/Microdata to all belong to the LD goal.
  310. # [12:08] <csarven> All "linked data". As opposed to whatever "Linked Data" is.
  311. # [12:08] <csarven> TimBL's http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/LinkedData originally didn't mention RDF/SPARQL. There was an update to include them. So, some confusion arises from that as well.
  312. # [12:08] <@tantek> yeah - most use of microformats2 is in a very lowercase "linked" data way - with emphasis on URLs
  313. # [12:09] <@tantek> except without all the formalities with URLs for predicates
  314. # [12:09] <@tantek> links for the *data* that is, not the predicates/relationships/vocab
  315. # [12:09] <csarven> Yeap. All URIs are welcome in RDF, but for LD, HTTP is most *useful*
  316. # [12:09] <@tantek> oh that distinction. yeah the URN thing was hilarious.
  317. # [12:09] <@tantek> Urns are what you put dead things into ;)
  318. # [12:12] <csarven> Pretty much. Just a string. Essentially good as any other unique srying
  319. # [12:15] <@tantek> right - and thus not as valuable / useful as an actual *link*
  320. # [12:28] * Joins: Acidnerd (~Acidnerd@5.79.86.129)
  321. # [12:38] * Quits: Acidnerd (~Acidnerd@5.79.86.129) (Quit: Gone..., I'll be back later..)
  322. # [13:01] <Loqi> [@BloggingStart] Author hReview Coupon – Add Star Ratings And Boost Search Engine Results With Author hReview… http://www.bloggingstart.com/author-hreview-coupon/ (http://twtr.io/vYCJMTPqpb)
  323. # [13:23] * Joins: Musk (~Musk@unaffiliated/musk)
  324. # Session Close: Mon Jan 26 13:50:56 2015
  325. #
  326. # Session Start: Mon Jan 26 13:50:56 2015
  327. # Session Ident: #microformats
  328. # [13:50] * Disconnected
  329. # [13:52] * Attempting to rejoin channel #microformats
  330. # [13:52] * Rejoined channel #microformats
  331. # [13:52] * Topic is 'http://microformats.org/wiki Logs: http://logbot.glob.com.au/?c=freenode%23microformats&s=today'
  332. # [13:52] * Set by tantek!~tantek@50-0-164-83.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net on Sun Aug 11 23:38:23
  333. # [13:52] -ChanServ- [#microformats] Welcome to #microformats. Logs at http://krijnhoetmer.nl/irc-logs/microformats
  334. # [13:52] #microformats url is http://microformats.org
  335. # [13:52] * Quits: ChiefRA (~RA@unaffiliated/chiefra) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  336. # [13:53] * Joins: ChiefRA (~RA@liber-185.3.226.193.bv.astral.ro)
  337. # [13:53] * Quits: ChiefRA (~RA@liber-185.3.226.193.bv.astral.ro) (Changing host)
  338. # [13:53] * Joins: ChiefRA (~RA@unaffiliated/chiefra)
  339. # [13:59] * Quits: @tantek (~tantek@50-1-62-185.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com) (Quit: tantek)
  340. # [14:08] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@209.36.2.103)
  341. # [14:59] * Joins: pfefferle (~pfefferle@p4FDCE897.dip0.t-ipconnect.de)
  342. # [15:35] * Joins: TallTed (~Thud@63.119.36.36)
  343. # [15:48] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@209.36.2.103) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  344. # [16:27] * Joins: pfefferle_ (~pfefferle@213.144.11.130)
  345. # [16:27] * Quits: pfefferle (~pfefferle@p4FDCE897.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 252 seconds)
  346. # [16:27] * pfefferle_ is now known as pfefferle
  347. # [16:29] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@209.36.2.103)
  348. # [16:41] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@209.36.2.103) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  349. # [17:00] * Joins: AndrewBC__ (~AndrewBC@ip72-216-61-155.pn.at.cox.net)
  350. # [17:11] * Joins: gRegor` (~me@71.201.46.159)
  351. # [17:15] * Quits: kez_ (~quassel@inet2.evalesco.com) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  352. # [17:15] * Joins: kez_ (~quassel@inet2.evalesco.com)
  353. # [17:18] * Quits: kez_ (~quassel@inet2.evalesco.com) (Remote host closed the connection)
  354. # [17:29] * Joins: tantek (~tantek@50.1.62.185)
  355. # [17:29] * ChanServ sets mode: +o tantek
  356. # [17:30] * Quits: @tantek (~tantek@50.1.62.185) (Client Quit)
  357. # [17:30] * Joins: tantek (~tantek@50.1.62.185)
  358. # [17:30] * ChanServ sets mode: +o tantek
  359. # [17:32] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.171)
  360. # [17:33] * Quits: pfefferle (~pfefferle@213.144.11.130) (Ping timeout: 240 seconds)
  361. # [17:37] * Joins: pfefferle (~pfefferle@213.144.11.130)
  362. # [18:07] * edsu_ is now known as edsu
  363. # [18:29] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.171) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  364. # [18:34] <Loqi> [@Polo_Seo] @kmaaouni là ils ont celui là en place hreview-aggregate (http://twtr.io/vYhBhztegu)
  365. # [18:42] * Quits: pfefferle (~pfefferle@213.144.11.130) (Quit: pfefferle)
  366. # [18:57] * Quits: voxpelli (sid31634@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-kwqubefrsuurowlh)
  367. # [18:57] * Joins: voxpelli (sid31634@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-uqooztuzcfojeoeo)
  368. # [19:08] * Quits: @adactio (~adactio@212.42.170.121) (Quit: adactio)
  369. # [19:31] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.148)
  370. # [19:59] * Joins: chiui (~chiui@2001:470:71:41b:217b:2ac1:d276:5b5d)
  371. # [20:15] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.148) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  372. # [20:16] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.148)
  373. # [20:20] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.148) (Ping timeout: 264 seconds)
  374. # [20:51] * Joins: pfefferle (~pfefferle@x2f58722.dyn.telefonica.de)
  375. # [20:53] * Joins: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net)
  376. # [20:55] * Quits: pfefferle (~pfefferle@x2f58722.dyn.telefonica.de) (Client Quit)
  377. # [21:50] * Quits: TallTed (~Thud@63.119.36.36)
  378. # [22:01] * Quits: csarven (~csarven@84-73-123-134.dclient.hispeed.ch) (Quit: csarven)
  379. # [22:01] * Joins: csarven (~csarven@84-73-123-134.dclient.hispeed.ch)
  380. # [22:02] * Quits: KartikPrabhu (~kartik@108-69-72-147.lightspeed.cicril.sbcglobal.net) (Ping timeout: 245 seconds)
  381. # [22:11] * Quits: Musk (~Musk@unaffiliated/musk) (Ping timeout: 276 seconds)
  382. # [22:13] * Quits: bret (sid12421@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-mqdswofxneotzjjl) (Remote host closed the connection)
  383. # [22:13] * Quits: tommorris (sid639@wikimedia/Tom-Morris) (Remote host closed the connection)
  384. # [22:13] * Quits: benward______ (sid523@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-lsrdcqanibyevjde) (Remote host closed the connection)
  385. # [22:13] * Quits: @Phae (sid455@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-jhbefvvjpeabnovm) (Write error: Broken pipe)
  386. # [22:13] * Quits: twisted` (sid6794@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-juhnkaeydqyryflc) (Write error: Broken pipe)
  387. # [22:16] * Joins: Musk (~Musk@unaffiliated/musk)
  388. # [22:22] * Quits: Musk (~Musk@unaffiliated/musk) (Quit: Linkinus - http://linkinus.com)
  389. # [22:23] * Joins: Phae (sid455@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-scfxyueygksswmhh)
  390. # [22:23] * Joins: benward______ (sid523@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-awmfnhnrvafdueab)
  391. # [22:24] * ChanServ sets mode: +o Phae
  392. # [22:24] * Joins: tommorris (sid639@wikimedia/Tom-Morris)
  393. # [22:30] * Joins: bret (sid12421@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-qfelafdbghciivmo)
  394. # [22:37] * Joins: twisted` (sid6794@gateway/web/irccloud.com/x-fheenkxkgiiycvjd)
  395. # [22:45] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.133)
  396. # [22:47] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.133) (Client Quit)
  397. # [22:54] * Quits: chiui (~chiui@2001:470:71:41b:217b:2ac1:d276:5b5d) (Remote host closed the connection)
  398. # [23:03] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.133)
  399. # [23:33] * Quits: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.133) (Quit: My Mac has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…)
  400. # [23:42] * Joins: prtksxna (~prtksxna@205.154.255.133)
  401. # Session Close: Tue Jan 27 00:00:00 2015

Previous day, Next day

Think these logs are useful? Then please donate to show your gratitude (and keep them up, of course). Thanks! — Krijn