[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] Re: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)
From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@i...> > Take a look at the dot.com fallout. People > will believe and invest and will lose their > shirts and others will take their shirts and > build big pink houses on the hillsides outside > San Jose with them. I think dotcom game is irrelevant to technology and the game itself is not worth disussion. > When HTML said SGML > was evil, some took that to heart. When > others said HyTime was evil, some took that > to heart. Both times, the sayers were wrong. Do you really think that propaganda is really *that* powerfull ? Mass-developers were ignoring SGML and related tools for 15 (?) years. I think people are not that stupid to ignore really good things for *that* long. I have the impression that SGML elitists really think that for years people were using 'other tools' ( like perl and TeX and , yes - MS Word ) instead of using SGML-based tools because people are stupid. I don't buy it. 15 years in computing is incredibly long time. Perl is less than 15 years old, Python is less than 15 years old. Linux is about 15 years old - not talking about MS Word. When some tools are ignored for 15 years, I think this means that those tools are not providing a simple answers to simple questions. "result tree fragment..." damn it .... ( nevermind, please ). > It took experience and a lot of hard work > for people to find the baby in the bathwater, Pardon? Where is the baby? > but they have and there are remarkably good > systems coming out as a result that have little > in common with the original HTMLOverAll systems. > They look like... SGML + hypermedia circa 1989 > with better graphics. So far so good. ... You mean that with those systems I can safely modify the schema of my document without changing too much of my processing code, and also I can safely change the schema provided by some *other* vendor, easily extending the processing tool provided by the same vendor without too much hacking ? Great! Where are those SGML-based systems hiding ? ( I think you should agree that the questions I'm asking are really simple and basic. Right ? ) > That is what we are doing here with the semantic > web. I started out with the "the semantic web > is a crock" position knowing full well that the underlying > tech and concepts do work in a limited fashion > because, being an old guy now, I was a young > turk when case grammars, AI, expert systems > and all that were discussed last time. They > do work, in a limited fashion. But I took > the very pessimistic approach precisely because > of the "idealistic" view you talk about. Here I agree with you. I don't think that AI zombie will dance. Do people really found some new-really-universal-and-scalable 'frames' since last failure of AI ? > As others have mentioned, some of the search > engines are a LOT better these days. When > I sit with my son to do a book report on the > Enola Gay and type that in, I don't see nearly > as many superstitious unwanted hits as we once > did. That's progress. If you are talking about google, there should be no surprise. <google> PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and help to make other pages "important." </google> So what google did it just started ranking of page using the *very*well*known* practice, used in the scientific publishing for ages. I don't know how it is called in the US, but long before the Internet, in Russia, for example, each scientific publication had a property "index of citation" - the number of publications, referring to this publication. So what google did - they just implemented some *well*known* *old* and *simple* idea which is natural and could be explained in one paragraph. Could somebody please explain me The Semantic Web in one paragraph ? Or maybe I have to read huge books and to learn many new (buzz)words to understand the design of The Semantic Web ? Sorry - this will not gonna fly then. If it could not be explained in a simple way - it just not gonna fly, like it always was, I think. Rgds.Paul.
|
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
|