Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic web mega-permathre
 Didier PH Martin wrote: > <rdf:description about=http://mydomain.com/myresource"> > <category>weight loss</category> > etc... > </rdf:description> > > Considering the huge market for this category (especially in the USA) do you > firmly believe that this meta-data will trustable? Maybe 1 or 2% of the time > but surely not for the vast majority... On a case by case by basis, no of course not, unless you have some prior agreement or implict trust - that's why we have social notions like brand management and technological ones like spam filters. But it depends on what you're doing with this data. if you're aggregating large amounts it, you get some amount of smoothing - Amazon reviews remain useful despite the fact people write them. I've always felt that the stuff that Tim BL and Joshua Allen talk about requires a "signal processing" layer to get from data to metadata. That's not present in the SemWeb layer cakes I've seen. Miles Sabin quite rightly mentioned that GOFAI has yet to prove itself worthy, but there are systems out there where stuff remsembling usable GOFAI has been built, but on top of scruffy AI tech, not handcrafted ontologies. > Actually the only success of meta-data publishing is about publishing table > of contents. So I just need to find one counter-example to refute that... ;) > People have enough incentives to be honest about providing > location, date and a short description about a resource. I think there is a significant, but orthogonal, architectural issue here. On the Internet, it's too hard to prove you're not a dog. > The kind of meta-data Doctorow is speaking about is not about table of > contents but more other kind of meta-data like for instance providing > keywords or category for a resource. Some of it is, some of it isn't. > In that case I would trust more an > automated source than human beings trying to extract as much cash as > possible from our pocket. And even automated sources can be manipulated (we > call that Search Engine Optimization) by the very same people. No disagreement from me. > > Bottom line, I really don't know if the semantic web can go beyond the table > of contents or some very limited applications. Suppose it was 1935 and I said: bottom line I don't know whether these proposed computing machines can solve the Entscheidungsproblem. Does that make computing today not useful by virtue of being restricted to limited applications (or as Picasso pointed out, computers can only give you answers)? This stuff doesn't have to be formally correct or all encompassing to be useful. cheers Bill 
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! 
Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|
|||||||||
