6 ms·

Finally, semantic links for the girl i'm crushing on. what took so long?

40 points by clutchski 17y ago

vicaya 17y ago
Had a little cognitive dissonance when I noticed that the status is "accepted" for that attribute value.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  Maybe for a site like okcupid... Okay, that's still a stretch.
tyrmored 17y ago
Where's "arch-nemesis"?
- anonjon 17y ago
  yeah and 'underling' or 'sidekick'? Can we make different semantic maps to match up with different (possibly distorted) perceptions of reality? If 'to be is to be perceived', it seems that a single semantic web will be flawed as it canonicalizes something that is not an objective reality. Need multiple immutable semantic webs in layers with shared structure, where you can access the shared structure.
  - randallsquared 17y ago
    yeah and 'underling' I think you mean 'minion'.
- sethg 17y ago
  Not to mention "pointy-haired ex-boss".
  - krakensden 17y ago
    Don't you mean "fearless leader"?
mfukar 17y ago
OK, there's no 'hate', 'kill', 'restraining order'. Is Web 2.0 becoming too goody-good for its own good?
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  Orwell? The list is far from complete, I doubt those would be the first words people would think to add, I'm sure word with negative connotations will be added in the future.
  - chasingsparks 17y ago
    Double-plus good comment, TrevorJ.
- sethg 17y ago
  A "restraining order" semantic relationship (preferably, a three-part relationship: X has taken out a restraining order against Y, as officially documented by Z) would actually be useful, unlike this "date" and "crush" silliness. Likewise "health-care proxy", "attorney", "executor of will".
three14 17y ago
Could someone who has time to kill to go through the "Microformats Process" please add the "parody" keyword? This would be a great help for the next time xkcd wants to demonstrate the beauty of HTML5.
shrikant 17y ago
WordPress already has support for this, when you're editing your Blogroll links (out of the box). Awesome.
WalterGR 17y ago
Very interesting. Keyword = "crush" = brief description = "this person considers the referenced person to be a crush (i.e. has a crush on the referenced person)" Keyword = "date" = brief description = "this person considers the referenced person to be a date (i.e. is dating the referenced person)" I'd argue that considering a person to be "a date" does not imply that one is dating that person. Doctorow: "In meta-utopia, the lab-coated guardians of epistemology sit down and rationally map out a hierarchy of ideas..." http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
- ComputerGuru 17y ago
  I don't get it.. Maybe I'm just being a little slow, but how does the fact that I consider I went out on a date with X not mean that I'm dating X?
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    In the logical sense it does, however typically the term "dating" connotes a commitment to the relationship that is a a bit deeper than simply going on a single date. I think it's the modern equivalent of "going steady".
    - bravura 17y ago
      I would argue that "dating" means that we go on dates together (present tense being important here). But a lot of people are "dating" before they have a specific conversation about exclusitivity.
      - TrevorJ 17y ago
        That's the difference between the literal meaning of the word and the implied meaning I think.
  - NikkiA 17y ago
    Example: I offer to meet you at a computer store to help you pick out a good monitor. You, having a crush on me, consider this a 'date', I, not having any romantic feelings for you whatsoever, consider it an act of friendship. And yes, there are people that think such things constitute a 'date', they usually turn out to be a scary creepy stalker types once you tell them you're not interested.
axod 17y ago
"Crushing on"? Never heard that expression before. "Have a crush on" is more usual.
sethg 17y ago
Clay Shirky had some acrid comments on this "semantic links to humans" idea five years ago: http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/17/xfn_relationships.php http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/17/xfn_relationship... One comment to that post remarked: "It seems to me that it's not just a solution looking for a problem; it's a problem looking for a problem."

40 points by clutchski 17y ago

vicaya 17y ago

Had a little cognitive dissonance when I noticed that the status is "accepted" for that attribute value.

steveklabnik 17y ago
Maybe for a site like okcupid... Okay, that's still a stretch.

tyrmored 17y ago

Where's "arch-nemesis"?

anonjon 17y ago
yeah and 'underling' or 'sidekick'? Can we make different semantic maps to match up with different (possibly distorted) perceptions of reality? If 'to be is to be perceived', it seems that a single semantic web will be flawed as it canonicalizes something that is not an objective reality. Need multiple immutable semantic webs in layers with shared structure, where you can access the shared structure.
- randallsquared 17y ago
  yeah and 'underling' I think you mean 'minion'.
sethg 17y ago
Not to mention "pointy-haired ex-boss".
- krakensden 17y ago
  Don't you mean "fearless leader"?

mfukar 17y ago

OK, there's no 'hate', 'kill', 'restraining order'. Is Web 2.0 becoming too goody-good for its own good?

TrevorJ 17y ago
Orwell? The list is far from complete, I doubt those would be the first words people would think to add, I'm sure word with negative connotations will be added in the future.
- chasingsparks 17y ago
  Double-plus good comment, TrevorJ.
sethg 17y ago
A "restraining order" semantic relationship (preferably, a three-part relationship: X has taken out a restraining order against Y, as officially documented by Z) would actually be useful, unlike this "date" and "crush" silliness. Likewise "health-care proxy", "attorney", "executor of will".

three14 17y ago

Could someone who has time to kill to go through the "Microformats Process" please add the "parody" keyword? This would be a great help for the next time xkcd wants to demonstrate the beauty of HTML5.

shrikant 17y ago

WordPress already has support for this, when you're editing your Blogroll links (out of the box). Awesome.

WalterGR 17y ago

Very interesting. Keyword = "crush" = brief description = "this person considers the referenced person to be a crush (i.e. has a crush on the referenced person)" Keyword = "date" = brief description = "this person considers the referenced person to be a date (i.e. is dating the referenced person)" I'd argue that considering a person to be "a date" does not imply that one is dating that person. Doctorow: "In meta-utopia, the lab-coated guardians of epistemology sit down and rationally map out a hierarchy of ideas..." http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm

ComputerGuru 17y ago
I don't get it.. Maybe I'm just being a little slow, but how does the fact that I consider I went out on a date with X not mean that I'm dating X?
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  In the logical sense it does, however typically the term "dating" connotes a commitment to the relationship that is a a bit deeper than simply going on a single date. I think it's the modern equivalent of "going steady".
  - bravura 17y ago
    I would argue that "dating" means that we go on dates together (present tense being important here). But a lot of people are "dating" before they have a specific conversation about exclusitivity.
    - TrevorJ 17y ago
      That's the difference between the literal meaning of the word and the implied meaning I think.
- NikkiA 17y ago
  Example: I offer to meet you at a computer store to help you pick out a good monitor. You, having a crush on me, consider this a 'date', I, not having any romantic feelings for you whatsoever, consider it an act of friendship. And yes, there are people that think such things constitute a 'date', they usually turn out to be a scary creepy stalker types once you tell them you're not interested.

axod 17y ago

"Crushing on"? Never heard that expression before. "Have a crush on" is more usual.

sethg 17y ago

Clay Shirky had some acrid comments on this "semantic links to humans" idea five years ago: http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/17/xfn_relationships.php http://many.corante.com/archives/2004/08/17/xfn_relationship... One comment to that post remarked: "It seems to me that it's not just a solution looking for a problem; it's a problem looking for a problem."