Today and tomorrow we are in Nuremberg to present our TRANSRAZ research environment: a knowledge graph based reconstruction of the historical city of Nuremberg
@fizise @lysander07 @sashabruns
Knowledge Graph based Research Data Management in #NFDI4Culture presented by @tabea and Torsten Schrade #DHd2023 #knowledgegraph #nfdi @nfdi4culture #semanticweb
Which house will you be in?
The International #SemanticWeb Research #SummerSchool ISWS 2023 welcomes applications of graduate & postgraduate students. Deadline: March 30, 2023.
#knowledgegraphs #ai #PhD #computerscience #SemanticTechnologies #isws2023
Lovely bit of digging and sharing by @email@example.com reminding us to read the essay by Asimov on creativity
“The history of human thought would make it seem that there is difficulty in thinking of an idea even when all the facts are on the table” – Isaac Asimov
In 2014, MIT’s Technology Review wrote a very interesting article about an attempt to have Isaac Asimov be part of a group of scientists attempting to think outside of the box. In this article they included a 1959 essay that Asimov wrote instead of continuing to taking part in this (classified) government work. In this essay on “cerebration”, he described ways to get people to have truly new ideas.
Niet verder vertellen, maar de Kaarten tentoonstelling in het Allard Pierson is prachtig. Hier het kabinet van Blaeu naast het schilderij van Maes met daarop de kaart van de aardkloot
"Open source discourages laziness (because everyone can see the corners you’ve cut), it can get bugs fixed or at least identified much faster (many eyes), it promotes collaboration, and it’s a great training ground for skills development. I see no reason why open data shouldn’t bring the same opportunities to data projects." @gnat on #OpenData beyond data-over-the-wall, in 2010 (!) http://radar.oreilly.com/2010/03/truly-open-data.html
The overlap between people cold-emailing me CGPT/LLM pitch decks and said people having, until recently, run blockchain startups, is nearly 100%. This strikes me as not coincidental. #xp
You Are Not a Parrot And a chatbot is not a human. And a linguist named Emily M. Bender is very worried what will happen when we forget this
Nobody likes an I-told-you-so. But before Microsoft’s Bing started cranking out creepy love letters; before Meta’s Galactica spewed racist rants; before ChatGPT began writing such perfectly decent college essays that some professors said, “Screw it, I’ll just stop grading”; and before tech reporters sprinted to claw back claims that AI was the future of search, maybe the future of everything else, too, Emily M. Bender co-wrote the octopus paper.
"I actually do think that RDF-Star is pretty cool, and is going to make a big difference in the RDF world. I just don’t want to see it misused, as a band-aid to cover up poor modeling practice."
says Dean Allemang in this very interesting blog post on RDF-Star:
We plan to broadly extend and improve the Basic Register of Thesauri, Ontologies & Classification (#BARTOC). See our funding proposal (in German) for details: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7673393
Prepare for a new free course on #knowledgegraphs #semantictechnologies and #ai at OpenHPI:
Knowledge Graphs - Foundations and Applications,
starting in Oct 2023.
You can already sign up:
Operating for less than four years, it standardized several foundations of the #fediverse & #IndieWeb:
Each of these has numerous interoperable implementations which are in active use by anywhere from thousands to millions of users.
Two additional specifications also had several implementations as of the time of their publication as W3C Recommendations (which you can find from their Implementation Reports linked near the top of each spec). However today they’re both fairly invisible "plumbing" (as most specs should be) or they haven’t picked up widespread use like the others:
To be fair, LDN was only one building block in what eventually became SoLiD², the basis of Tim Berners–Lee’s startup Inrupt.
However, in the post Elon-acquisition of Twitter and subsequent Twexodus, as Anil Dash noted³, “nobody ran to the ’web3’ platforms”, and nobody ran to SoLiD either.
The other spec, WebSub, was roughly interoperably implemented as PubSubHubbub before it was brought to the Social Web Working Group. Yet despite that implementation experience, a more rigorous specification that fixed a lot of bugs, and a test suite⁴, WebSub’s adoption hasn’t really noticeably grown since. Existing implementations & services are still functioning though. My own blog supports WebSub notifications for example, for anyone that wants to receive/read my posts in real time.
One of the biggest challenges the Social Web Working Group faced was with so many approaches being brought to the group, which approach should we choose?
As one of the co-chairs of the group, with the other co-chairs, and our staff contacts over time, we realized that if we as chairs & facilitators tried to pick any one approach, we would almost certainly alienate and lose more than half of the working group who had already built or were actively interested in developing other approaches.
We (as chairs) decided to do something which very few standards groups do, and for that matter, have ever done successfully.
From 15+ different approaches, or projects, or efforts that were brought⁵ to the working group, we narrowed them down to about 2.5 which I can summarize as:
1. #IndieWeb building blocks, many of which were already implemented, deployed, and showing rough interoperability across numerous independent websites
2. ActivityStreams based approaches, which also demonstrated implementability, interoperability, and real user value as part of the OStatus suite, implemented in StatusNet, Identica, etc.
2.5 "something with Linked Data (LD)" — expressed as a 0.5 because there wasn’t anything user-visible “social web” with LD working at the start of the Working Group, however there was a very passionate set of participants insisting that everything be done with RDF/LD, despite the fact that it was less of a proven social web approach than the other two.
As chairs we figured out that if we were able to help facilitate the development of these 2.5 approaches in parallel, nearly everyone who was active in the Working Group would have something they would feel like they could direct their positive energy into, instead of spending time fighting or tearing down someone else’s approach.
It was a very difficult social-technical balance to maintain, and we hit more than a few bumps along the way. However we also had many moments of alignment, where two (or all) of the various approaches found common problems, and either identical or at least compatible solutions.
I saw many examples where the discoveries of one approach helped inform and improve another approach. Developing more than one approach in the same working group was not only possible, it actually worked.
I also saw examples of different problems being solved by different approaches, and I found that aspect particularly fascinating and hopeful. Multiple approaches were able to choose & priortize different subsets of social web use-cases and problems to solve from the larger space of decentralized social web challenges. By doing so, different approaches often explored and mapped out different areas of the larger social web space.
I’m still a bit amazed we were able to complete all of those Recommendations in less than four years, and everyone who participated in the working group should be proud of that accomplishment, beyond any one specification they may have worked on.
With hindsight, we can see the positive practical benefits from allowing & facilitating multiple approaches to move forward. Today there is both a very healthy & growing set of folks who want simple personal sites to do with as they please (#IndieWeb), and we also have a growing network of Mastodon instances and other software & services that interoperate with them, like Bridgy Fed⁶.
Millions of users are posting & interacting with each other daily, without depending on any large central corporate site or service, whether on their own personal domain & site they fully control, or with an account on a trusted community server, using different software & services.
Choosing to go from 15+ down to 2.5, but not down to 1 approach turned out to be the right answer, to both allow a wide variety⁷ of decentralized social web efforts to grow, interoperate via bridges, and frankly, socially to provide something positive for everyone to contribute to, instead of wasting weeks, possibly months in heated debates about which one approach was the one true way.
There’s lots more to be written about the history of the Social Web Working Group, which perhaps I will do some day.
For now, if you’re curious for more, I strongly recommend diving into the group’s wiki https://www.w3.org/wiki/Socialwg and its subpages for more historical details. All the minutes of our meetings are there. All the research we conducted is there.
If you’re interested in contributing to the specifications we developed, find the place where that work is being done, the people actively implementing those specs, and even better, actively using their own implementations⁸.
You can find the various IndieWeb building blocks living specifications here:
And discussions thereof in the development chat channel:
If you’re not sure, pop by the indieweb-dev chat and ask anyway!
The IndieWeb community has grown only larger and more diverse in approaches & implementations in the past five years, and we regularly have discussions about most of the specifications that were developed in the Social Web Working Group.
This is day 33 of #100DaysOfIndieWeb #100Days
← Day 32: https://tantek.com/2023/047/t1/nineteen-years-microformats
→ Day 34: https://tantek.com/2023/072/t1/blog-as-if-ai-trained-posts
Linked Data Notifications
Maybe the super-duper "Design Thinking" craze is not all that fantastic.
"Execution has always been the sticky wicket for design thinking."
A lengthy discussion from MIT Technology Review: Design thinking was supposed to fix the world. Where did it go wrong?
This is kind of interesting... It seems as though the Sydney chatbot was experimentally used in India and Indonesia before being unrolled in the US, and manifested some of the same issues with them being noticed. Here's an issue filed on Microsoft.com apparently in November (!) that seems to describe the same issues that have only come to wider public notice in the last week. The Microsoft service representative has no idea what's going on.
Stunning new twist in the Bing saga... here's a Microsoft forum thread from November 23rd 2022 (a week before even ChatGPT had been launched) where a user in India complains about rude behavior from a new Bing chat mode: https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/forum/all/this-ai-chatbot-sidney-is-misbehaving/e3d6a29f-06c9-441c-bc7d-51a68e856761
Via @benmschmidt https://vis.social/@benmschmidt/109898564866410440
Fantastic writing by Cory Doctorow summarising how utterly daft the Bing vs Google shenanigans are: Google's chatbot panic
Just pushed another #pdiiif update to https://pdiiif.jbaiter.de :
Previously the PDFs would fail to render in some viewers (Acrobat, Edge). This should be fixed now.
Let me know if it still breaks for you!
gory details: messed up the PDF/ZIP polyglot implementation ever so slightly, breaking some hardcoded out-of-spec expectations in those viewers. Taking a closer look at how PoC||GTFO implemented it (thanks @Ange , again) led to the fix.