3 ms·

This sounds interesting to me! I actually thought about something relatively similar with the intention of creating js-based renderer to make it web browser com

by mr__y 7y ago

This sounds interesting to me! I actually thought about something relatively similar with the intention of creating js-based renderer to make it web browser compatible. I was also contemplating the idea to put semantic data into a separate structure, similarly to schema.org data in json-ld format. While this is probably worse from the editor point of view, the advantage would be more clear and more human readable content since the semantic tags would be omitted. This could also save some bandwidth if client software could fetch only the part that it needs (for instance if a given reader does not support semantic tags parsing it could download only the main content, while search engines could download only the semantic part). The problem is that thinking about that for a while is all that I've achieved so far :)

cybervegan 7y ago
I know what you mean.
breck 7y ago
> schema.org data in json-ld format It would be cool if you explored Tree Notation in your thoughts. We have an idea roughly called "World Wide Tree" (or at least one person calls it "World Wide Forest"). We think Tree Notation might be the trick to getting the semantic web vision realized. One simple universal syntax for HTML, CSS, Javascript, JSON, Data schemas, data itself, etc. The semantics you still need to define and build machines for, but if we had a simpler syntax (without sacrificing a single capability!) that might move the ball pretty far.
- tempo33 7y ago
  > We think Tree Notation might be the trick to getting the semantic web vision realized. I'm not sure what Tree Notation fundamentally brings to the table that RDF and microformats, etc do not.. Have you read: https://people.well.com/user/doctorow/metacrap.htm https://people.well.com/user/doctorow/metacrap.htm How does Tree Notation address anything listed there? The semantic web has never been about technological limitations or tooling problems. And ever if it were, that is solving the simple problem.
  - breck 7y ago
    That's a fantastic, fantastic link. Thanks for sharing. Very informative. I may have read it before, but don't see it in my notes. > How does Tree Notation address anything listed there? The 2 things that have changed since 2001: - git - Tree Notation A very powerful combination. In two ways. First as a collaborative database system (https://treenotation.org/treeBase/ https://treenotation.org/treeBase/). Second as collaborative grammars (done via Github, gitlab, or any gitX). 1. "People lie". Complexity can be measured directly in Tree Notation. Complexity is where corruption hides. Tree Notation + git (blaming, etc), makes it much harder to lie. 2. "People are lazy": Tree Notation requires the fewest keystrokes (or pen/pencil strokes--it works great on paper too! very important in clinical settings. for instance, in some countries, 80% of hospitals have no digital medical records at all--I was recently told today!). Tree Notation and our grammar language gives you type checking, autocomplete, autocorrections, and more. 3. "People are stupid": see response to #2. 4. "Mission: Impossible -- know thyself". I'm not sure the problem here. The semantic web shouldn't be about forcing some model of behavior on people. 5. "Schemas aren't neutral". Tree Notation makes this very simple: just fork a grammar! We are carefully designing our Grammar language so you can simply do a file concat of N files to create a new grammar. We are making it as easy as possible to build, fork, and combine new grammars. 6. "Metrics influence results". In our database of 10k notations and computer languages, I quickly realized that you can't bucket things so cleanly. Terms like "a functional language" an "imperative language" are mildly useful, but not so precise. Instead, we now have over 1K columns. Tree Notation/TreeBase/Grammars make this very easy. Amongst other things, this will allow for better precision medicine. 7. "There's more than one way to describe something". We agree! It's so easy to fork a Grammar if you think you can do it better. Let the market decide. We have this of we talk about of the "World Wide Tree". But at least one person thinks we should call it the "World Wide Forest". I think they may be right. FWIW, I pitched Tree Notation for the semantic web to w3c in 2017 but never head back. This is a reminder that I should ping them again. Thanks again for the link. A very good read and I've long been a fan of CD's work.

by mr__y 7y ago

cybervegan 7y ago

I know what you mean.

breck 7y ago

> schema.org data in json-ld format It would be cool if you explored Tree Notation in your thoughts. We have an idea roughly called "World Wide Tree" (or at least one person calls it "World Wide Forest"). We think Tree Notation might be the trick to getting the semantic web vision realized. One simple universal syntax for HTML, CSS, Javascript, JSON, Data schemas, data itself, etc. The semantics you still need to define and build machines for, but if we had a simpler syntax (without sacrificing a single capability!) that might move the ball pretty far.

tempo33 7y ago
> We think Tree Notation might be the trick to getting the semantic web vision realized. I'm not sure what Tree Notation fundamentally brings to the table that RDF and microformats, etc do not.. Have you read: https://people.well.com/user/doctorow/metacrap.htm https://people.well.com/user/doctorow/metacrap.htm How does Tree Notation address anything listed there? The semantic web has never been about technological limitations or tooling problems. And ever if it were, that is solving the simple problem.
- breck 7y ago
  That's a fantastic, fantastic link. Thanks for sharing. Very informative. I may have read it before, but don't see it in my notes. > How does Tree Notation address anything listed there? The 2 things that have changed since 2001: - git - Tree Notation A very powerful combination. In two ways. First as a collaborative database system (https://treenotation.org/treeBase/ https://treenotation.org/treeBase/). Second as collaborative grammars (done via Github, gitlab, or any gitX). 1. "People lie". Complexity can be measured directly in Tree Notation. Complexity is where corruption hides. Tree Notation + git (blaming, etc), makes it much harder to lie. 2. "People are lazy": Tree Notation requires the fewest keystrokes (or pen/pencil strokes--it works great on paper too! very important in clinical settings. for instance, in some countries, 80% of hospitals have no digital medical records at all--I was recently told today!). Tree Notation and our grammar language gives you type checking, autocomplete, autocorrections, and more. 3. "People are stupid": see response to #2. 4. "Mission: Impossible -- know thyself". I'm not sure the problem here. The semantic web shouldn't be about forcing some model of behavior on people. 5. "Schemas aren't neutral". Tree Notation makes this very simple: just fork a grammar! We are carefully designing our Grammar language so you can simply do a file concat of N files to create a new grammar. We are making it as easy as possible to build, fork, and combine new grammars. 6. "Metrics influence results". In our database of 10k notations and computer languages, I quickly realized that you can't bucket things so cleanly. Terms like "a functional language" an "imperative language" are mildly useful, but not so precise. Instead, we now have over 1K columns. Tree Notation/TreeBase/Grammars make this very easy. Amongst other things, this will allow for better precision medicine. 7. "There's more than one way to describe something". We agree! It's so easy to fork a Grammar if you think you can do it better. Let the market decide. We have this of we talk about of the "World Wide Tree". But at least one person thinks we should call it the "World Wide Forest". I think they may be right. FWIW, I pitched Tree Notation for the semantic web to w3c in 2017 but never head back. This is a reminder that I should ping them again. Thanks again for the link. A very good read and I've long been a fan of CD's work.