Location node: will be brilliant to add that, as a way of adding
context to a concept due to the ambigiueties of language. But as a
standalone node, simply to show you are interested in a particular
location, it doesn't make sense. Well it does, but it also means you
now have set the expectation that future terms need defining which is
potential infinite. So I think location added as context, like a time
stamp, is brilliant. But any other reason, not good.
People node: Don't see the point. The same way a definition defines a
concept should be used to define a person.
Source node: I think this is relevant and should be included. Concept
(thing) and source (lots of related things) makes sense.
I think only concepts and sources should be in the core spec; and
extensions be added to specify clusters of concepts like locations,
people etc. It allows people to opt in to use these terms for
consistency, but doesn't mandate it, because forcing generators to
have to determine whether something is a concept, a person, a
location, a beer type...falls into the same traps that plague
taxonomies where one master category doesn't necessarily mean it's the
only way to clasify something. The data format should be different
from the data interpretator. I agree we need some consistent terms,
but not the core spec - make it in the extensions only, as a best
practice not a mandated practice.
Also, I don't get what's stopping us from making APML RDF? APML looks
more like microformats - pretty to humans, annoying for computers.
When I export my APML file, I don't look at the XML - I'd expect an
application ot create pretty dials interpreting it. We should be doing
it in a format that makes it easier for computers to manipulate,
interpret, use - not humans. I don't care how my e-mail is stored when
I send an e-mail - I just care that the e-mail gets sent to the
destination. I am not going ot pretend I am an expert in RDF or
parsing and the rest - but it just seems to make sense to use RDF.
Also, if you want to add Location (lat/long/elevation/radius) as a
standardized qualifier to Concepts, should you add TimeRange as well?
and Color, etc? Or are location and time range (and color, etc)
qualifiers also just concepts? (Perhaps Concepts then could be
nested, or could directly reference other Concepts in the AMPL, or we
need a new "qualifier" node.)
--Mason