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

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

wiki.whatwg.org

40 pointsclutchski23 comments

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

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?

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".

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.

That's the difference between the literal meaning of the word and the implied meaning I think.

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.

Miss Manners has a simple protocol: a date must contain food, entertainment, and affection. In the early stages of the relationship, it's mostly entertainment and just the slightest hint of affection. As the relationship progresses, the level of affection increases. When the affection becomes the entertainment, we no longer call it dating. Under no circumstances may the food be omitted.

I generally don't consider it as "we're dating" until at least the 3rd or 4th date. The first few dates are tryouts for "dating".

Where's "arch-nemesis"?

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.

yeah and 'underling'

I think you mean 'minion'.

Not to mention "pointy-haired ex-boss".

Don't you mean "fearless leader"?

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

Maybe for a site like okcupid...

Okay, that's still a stretch.

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.

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_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."

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

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.

Double-plus good comment, TrevorJ.

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".

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

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com