Lady, EVOLVED @Lady@cat.family

dykes were hot in the 90s ok

yeah i’m the kind of age where i want to bring 90s fashion back

actually, W3C, i prefer to receive my updates through RFC 4287 Atom feeds

feeling cuddly but my gf is asleep :(

it is funny because i think @aescling and i have very similar jobs but also, from what i can tell, very different ones

i think this is a good thing, to be clear

i was a metadata nerd before i worked in a library but now i have the social scripts to narrativize it

keep dreaming about work adjacent topics. i spend all day thinking about these topics so it makes sense, but also, how about not

all we have is their weird software detritus that we’ve picked up and repurposed for our own uses

obviously there WAS a community of weirdos who were willing to put the time in over decades to write specifications and build software just to talk to each other, but like, WHAT kind of a community? how? why?

can’t sleep so i’m thinking about defunct social web specifications

@for target in $$($(MAKE) -s -f '$<' listout QUIET=1 $(SHUSHEOPTS)); do if test '-d' "$(BUILDDIR)/public/$$target" && test '!' -d "$(DESTDIR)/$$target"; then mkdir -p "$(DESTDIR)/$$target"; fi; for file in $$(find "$(BUILDDIR)/public/$$target" -not '(' -name '.*' -or -type d ')'); do printf '%s\n' "$$file" | sed 's:$(BUILDDIR)/public/:/:;s:/_\(.*\)_\(\..*\)$$:/[\1]\2:g;s/¦/:/g;' | xargs printf 'Copying <%s>…\n' >&2; printf '%s\n' "$$file" | sed 's:$(BUILDDIR)/public/:$(DESTDIR)/:;s:/_\(.*\)_\(\..*\)$$:/[\1]\2:g;s/¦/:/g' | xargs cp "$$file"; done; done

if there are so many trans women in programming why haven’t they written any programming languages

and then the blockchain fuckers came along

i think it’s really cool how the semantic web people did a bunch of work and wrote a bunch of theory about how we can teach computers to reason, and then within a few years mostly agreed that having computers reason is a waste of time, but kept the formal specifications and vocabulary because it actually made things easier for humans to explain things to each other

it’s not Inconsistent to say that ontologies are a kind of object, it’s just Wrong

this is fine for what i’m doing so far but i’m still waiting for that Moment when a specification inevitably tries to use an Ontology Itself as the subject or object of an object property, thus implying that owl:Ontology is an owl:Class not merely an rdfs:Class (these are not the same)

anyway the actually interesting insight wasn’t in that specification but in the specification mapping R·D·F to Direct Semantics which states, with no fanfare, that all owl:OntologyProperty’s (note: this term is not documented) are silently transformed into owl:AnnotationProperty’s (interesting for the insight that properties of ontologies are functionally annotations in their implications)

if you are wondering how bad it can be, you have clearly never read a Semantics specification

learning cursed knowledge (reading the Owl 2 R·D·F‐Based Semantics specification)

not sure creating an Owl ontology from handwritten X·M·L is ever a good idea but if it is i’m sure getting close with it