|
|
APML.Public.General |
Hi,
Some of my views.
Location node: will be brilliant to add that, as a way of adding
People node: Don't see the point. The same way a definition defines a
Source node: I think this is relevant and should be included. Concept
I think only concepts and sources should be in the core spec; and
Also, I don't get what's stopping us from making APML RDF? APML looks
Elias
On Aug 9, 7:12 pm, Mason Lee <mason....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Re: Location
> For what it's worth, geo-location is most commonly expressed as:
> Latitude (Decimal Degrees)
> Re: RDF and Concepts
> I have a question. I like the RDF-direction that Tim described in his
> Is the APML goal simply to define "The Ontology of Human Attention
> Cheers,
> On Aug 8, 2008, at 6:27 PM, Ash Angell wrote:
> > Paul I like the specific I think it has a number of significant
> > Ash
> > On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 2:14 AM, Paul Jones <pauljone...@gmail.com>
> > This comes with a very large fore note: This is a very early draft
> > The draft is located at:http://groups.google.com/group/apml-public/web/apml-1-0-draft-1
> > Cheers,
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.
concept should be used to define a person.
(thing) and source (lots of related things) makes sense.
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.
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.
> (Hi everybody! My name is Mason and I'm a lurker on this list. Paul,
> thanks for posting the 1.0 outline and talking points!)
> Longitude (Decimal Degrees)
> Elevation (Meters from mean sea-level)
> Radius (Meters)
> recent post and others have seconded: locations and people are just
> "concepts". However, does it follow that the APML group should not
> attempt to define or officially adopt some useful minimum concept
> ontology? Agreeing on what is a Person, a Time, a Geo-Location, etc.
> would go a long way towards making APML useful 'out of the box'.
> Itself, as Useful to Computerized Systems", or is it also a goal to
> officially adopt and promote a basic minimal ontology of concepts to
> help get everything off the ground? In my mind these are two separate
> missions.
> Mason
> > semantic advantages over 0.6 - my only concern is the location node,
> > which I feel should be x, y (instead of long/lat) and should
> > probably be always expressed in decimal degrees. the other value it
> > requires, is a distance measurement (in meters) which represents the
> > radius from the specified coordinates. Not perfect, but I feel its
> > probably close enough for now and could be fine tuned in a future
> > version.
> > wrote:
> > Hi All,
> > only, and nothing is set in stone. Given that the community is
> > obviously itching to start seeing APML 1.0 progress, I felt that it
> > would be an appropriate time to release this and assist in
> > structuring the discussion. I intend to follow this with a few more
> > emails that detail individual sections I believe need substantial
> > addressing.
> > Paul.