Or perhaps RDF labels?
3 Likes
Yes… many ways to do it, though this keeps bouncing back to the way that one word gets pwned in urls… and options for greater freedom of choice are attractive, though so is stability. I’m not convinced it matters in the long run but the short initial burst of name hogging might just feed greed and sow confusion about what words are not in dictionaries.
Will NRS ownership be transferable?..
1 Like
not transferable sounds bad
They are I think, but not sure if linked address can be changed.
just to note, labels require work that is beyond the user.
The url including the label as first element, would avoid requiring some service?
What I am thinking is to have
- A set of labels to choose from for layer1
- Standard subsets for subsequent layers.
So you can set something like
Resource:Class:Group:People:Identity:Name:Literal:<name chosen>
So create an RDF choose set, that depending on the label chosen gives us the next set to choose from. In reality what this means is force categorisation onto users and the reason is to alow data to been linked, even if the link is later.
Then all data on Safe will fall into a category and if correct then linked by others to form enormous data sets.
Imagine then what a “search” engine could look like?
I know it’s a big stretch, but is this the opportunity to “do data right”?
5 Likes
Eek… poets v academics!
YES! This is a huge opportunity to change indexing on the net for the better.
1 Like
My reaction is in part… yes, obviously a nice idea everything it tidy; but perception it complex and almost political or worse dull academic in the way the world is cast and limiting for that.
One classification, will not suit everyone, and most unlikely that they owners perception will be correct; so, would be important there is flexibility for there being more than one description of one end point. Where are the rdf’s held… do we want others casting their opinion against our content - trustpilot like ratings.
Keywords were used on early website search but rarely give quality results. Building a search engine is not difficult but is fragmented and relative to users - context matters as much as the content.
1 Like
One way this could work, is if the owner does that understanding that it will spawn inclusion to a list (?chain), which then others can make use of to resolve a consensus of whether that data does fit that description.
Opinions could then differ and services could build up and join their perception in a way that manages the difference and adds nuance, which in theory would be a limited amount of work. This would help avoid the problem of too much data fragmented all over the place, which is what I take from talk of rdf.
What’s missing at the front is Language?
There is also notably a natural way that reality casts perception, which drives the like of app stores - though those are focused to what apps are rather than the broader spectrum of human thought, they are a starting point (better than wikipedia which this string looks like)