Search
909 results for “href”
-
@hrefna Interesting when CEOs do a bad job, they fire employees who had absolutely no responsibility for Exec actions. #GoldenParachutes for corporate, nothing for people who do the actual labor.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
> Unsafe
The most unsafe part about #fediverse is master-don dominates with its #antiFeatures.
M'don is not much decentralised as many assume (see #CDNs). We just had a little rant about it.
We cannot protect fedizens, without protecting instances themselves. Adoption of I2P and/or at least proposals like #GlutPlug to help decentralise #contentDelivery will protect instances, but such discussions are nowhere.
Case in point, even slow-moving #bitcoin has #I2P support now.
-
Was würden Historiker:innen und historisch Arbeitende ihrem jüngeren Ich raten?
In der Reihe des #href Blog des #DHIWashington verrät Vanessa Tissen heute, was sie für ihre Arbeit an einem großen digitalen Projekt gerne früher gewusst hätte:
-
🆕Neue Blogreihe gestartet🆕
"Hätte ich das mal eher gewusst ..."
Einmal im Monat geben Historiker:innen künftig auf #HRef Einblick in die Praxis der digitalen Geschichtswissenschaft & berichten, was sie ihrem jüngeren Ich raten würden. ⬇️
https://href.hypotheses.org -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
CW: self-promotion
@hrefna I implemented #LocationLabels using #UlamSpirals, for which I used the #OEIS to find an algorithm to iterate over the spiral (implemented at whenwhere.cf)
-
@hrefna That's the sort of approach we're taking at #DistributedPress
If you're going to be at rue fediforum tomorrow we're planning to have a session to get more into the details :)
Right now we've split the content/publishing/serving/inbox/reading into different components that can be mixed and matched
-
@hrefna #rego for “routing” of messages is a pretty cool use case! I believe they do that in some #AquaSecurity project. A home made one sounds interesting though! Would love to take a look later if you publish it.
-
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
@hrefna you're so deeply right in this thread. this essentially defines the early and formative years of #RDF and #RDFS around some key decisions. There is so much worry about errors from mishandling, but the very possibility of expressing something that could be wrong. There is so much here it's hard to even know where to start but from the very start of the rdf-core and especially rdf-logic mailing lists the emphasis on correctness of expression vs. agency of interpretation is heated. This is a pretty unsubtle example: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0423.html
"Summary: RDF is not just a data model. The RDF specs should define a semantics so that an RDF statement on the web is interpreted as an assertion of that statement such that its author would be responsible in law as if it had been published in, say, a newspaper."
affirmed by this text: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jun/0180.html
"The RDFCore WG takes the view that RDF/XML documents, ie. encodings of
RDF graphs, are represenations of claims or assertions about the world. [...] we note that RDF graphs are the kind of things that can be true or false (rather than 'mere bytes'). For each linear syntax of RDF, there will be conventions (social, legal) for indicating which chunks of data are encodings of RDF graphs in that syntax, and thus of propositional content."So ya very very early they had decided that RDF was intended to be platonic representation of the world - it is a method of making propositions that must directly bear on the world, there is no ambiguity, there are only true or false things. (There's a lot of subtlety in that but yno.)
Another thing that comes to mind is the discussion of monotonicity that happens throughout, that's also tied up with the discussion of closed worldedness, containers, and whether or not things belong in sets for the purpose of local meaning or need to belong to the One Great Uniform Graph. It must be impossible for adding new triples into the reasoner to make it less certain of some outcome (ie. if it was possible for ambiguity to be introduced eg. by tangled type hierarchies etc.). This thread is all very illustrative but this message is super spicy and also touches on what you're talking about re using the level of granularity you care about: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0363.html
this quote from D bricks is also pretty telling of the epistemological commitments:
"RDF Schema is not about policing the content of specific descriptions
'what is said'; it's about policing what is sensibly sayable." -
Part of the reason you are seeing so much disappointment is because this is a company that largely, until this point, was walking a very different line, which you can see in their human rights policy https://www.tractorsupply.com/tsc/cms/human-rights-policy and previous environmental commitments.
HRC gave them a score of 95 https://www.hrc.org/resources/buyers-guide/tractor-supply-company-2
I don't think anyone thought they were even liberal, but it's a damn sight better than most companies in this space.
A short thread.
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @[email protected] @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna @cwebber @smallcircles I take it Mandy is a data storage layer?
Well, colour me very interested; as somebody who built graph abstractions on top of Holochain's DHT (which is a combo CAS + EAV) but can no longer ethically use them with #HolochainEmbracingFascism.
Am also low-key hopeful that there will be a Rust framework for Goblins someday 'cos that is as close as this classically trained software engineer has gotten to being comfortable with the lambda calculus 😂
-
@hrefna Are you familiar with the effort from a few of us at building out a robust #ActivtyPub Test Suite? If not, go see this group: @activitypubtestsuite
Love your thoughts on what would be helpful and if anyting you have already built functions as such a test suite, or could.
-
Was würden Historiker:innen und historisch Arbeitende ihrem jüngeren Ich raten?
In der Reihe des #href Blog des #DHIWashington verrät Vanessa Tissen heute, was sie für ihre Arbeit an einem großen digitalen Projekt gerne früher gewusst hätte:
-
Was würden Historiker:innen und historisch Arbeitende ihrem jüngeren Ich raten?
In der Reihe des #href Blog des #DHIWashington verrät Vanessa Tissen heute, was sie für ihre Arbeit an einem großen digitalen Projekt gerne früher gewusst hätte:
-
Was würden Historiker:innen und historisch Arbeitende ihrem jüngeren Ich raten?
In der Reihe des #href Blog des #DHIWashington verrät Vanessa Tissen heute, was sie für ihre Arbeit an einem großen digitalen Projekt gerne früher gewusst hätte:
-
🆕Neue Blogreihe gestartet🆕
"Hätte ich das mal eher gewusst ..."
Einmal im Monat geben Historiker:innen künftig auf #HRef Einblick in die Praxis der digitalen Geschichtswissenschaft & berichten, was sie ihrem jüngeren Ich raten würden. ⬇️
https://href.hypotheses.org -
🆕Neue Blogreihe gestartet🆕
"Hätte ich das mal eher gewusst ..."
Einmal im Monat geben Historiker:innen künftig auf #HRef Einblick in die Praxis der digitalen Geschichtswissenschaft & berichten, was sie ihrem jüngeren Ich raten würden. ⬇️
https://href.hypotheses.org -
🆕Neue Blogreihe gestartet🆕
"Hätte ich das mal eher gewusst ..."
Einmal im Monat geben Historiker:innen künftig auf #HRef Einblick in die Praxis der digitalen Geschichtswissenschaft & berichten, was sie ihrem jüngeren Ich raten würden. ⬇️
https://href.hypotheses.org
