Connected maybe? By the by, I wrote a paper on the complicated mess of multilateralism and how that intersects with domestic legislation a few years back. Never published though, because Brexit happened...it is a constant shifting sand. Legislation as code is perfect for it.
-
-
Replying to @BrigetteMetzler @mattwadd and
Maybe if we think of data as ‘things’ we will get better at linkdata... While we think of data purely as information we miss the ability to connect & embody it into reality. Ie: Thomas was alone...
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @craigthomler @mattwadd and
I had to pause and understand what you meant (wait, you mean people don't think of data as things?), but now I think you've hit the nail on the head.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @BrigetteMetzler @craigthomler and
Yes, and data standards allow for the things to be organized and functional (for the purposes of execution).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @craigaatkinson @BrigetteMetzler and
Right! We are continuing to make great progress with http://models.accordproject.org if people are looking for a modern/lightweight schema language and runtime. Apache2 under the
@linuxfoundation1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @danielselman @craigaatkinson and
this is lovely to see. However - if I ask 'what's the problem we're trying to solve?', it's not actually that we don't have standards. It is that we have data that don't align. Those datasets are driven by gov. They need gov standards or linksets gov will use. HMW achieve that?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrigetteMetzler @craigaatkinson and
The problem is 90% human, but our current schema languages don’t make it easy to publish and reuse/extend business schema. Concerto allows anyone to publish a schema to a URL where it can then be imported or extended by others.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @danielselman @craigaatkinson and
how is it difficult to publish and reuse/extend schema from Linked Open Data? (genuine question, I'm wondering if I perhaps have privileges or a particular bubble that make things easier for me)- I'd like to understand the problem space more?
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @BrigetteMetzler @danielselman and
I've tried to use OWL a couple of times, but found the experience so difficult that I have never been able to actually complete even a toy model. Not sure what other formats or tools are out there that are easier. And I have a use case. Several, actually. Can't get there.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @RoundTableLaw @danielselman and
we tried vocbench3 earlier in the year and found it to be lovely and easy to use.
@p_w has a few suggestions I imagine. These people have a very simple (takes 30sec to learn) tool: http://semantechs.co.uk/ this can be useful just for visualising: https://graphs.grevian.org/graph2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Looked at vocbench docs, first screen shot has the word "lexicalizations" over one section. That's a huge red flag that this is a tool built by people suffering from the curse of expertise. Which has been my experience across the board.
-
-
Replying to @RoundTableLaw @danielselman and
I hear that. A woman in my team used it, and she'd barely used excel, let alone anything else. But ok, so it isn't easy everywhere to do it yourself because of the tooling. How about the reuse aspect discussed above, what are the blockers there?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrigetteMetzler @danielselman and
1. Still tooling. Re-use is use. 2. Relational and object databases are ubiquitous, cheap. Graph databases are not. So I'd expect less resources, fewer experts, longer dev times, more bugs, higher admin costs... 3. Network effects haven't kicked in, yet. Guessing, though.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 2 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.