[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: Semantic Web

• To: 'John Cowan' <jcowan@r...>
• Subject: RE: Semantic Web
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:08:27 -0500
• Cc: xml-dev@l...

And the "self-generated" "extremely detailed and comprehensive" 
data is not available to Google?

Interesting.  So, one might generate a lot of RDF to classify 
a resource such that a representation can be chosen, but then 
make that RDF resource itself, a pay to play option.  Thus, 
the Semantic Web becomes the upgrade option for a service. 
That might make the web profitable where content has some 
perceived value, and it might get a lot of people to start 
generating more RDF.  It will also stratify the web.

Noting the USENET example that Joshua posted:  global 
ontologies work.  But shoult the global ontologies themselves 
be free resources even if once applied to a given resource, 
the resources generated by using them might not be.

Oh... lawyers will love it.

len


From: John Cowan [mailto:jcowan@r...]

"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:

> Ummm.... so Reuters charges Google more to index 
> its content than who?

If Google respects the Robot Exclusion Protocol, then they do not index
our news content at all.  In any event, most of it is locked down, and all of
it becomes locked down within 30 business days of publication.

But I was speaking of Reuters Health's self-generated metadata, which is
extremely detailed and comprehensive.

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Semantic Web
    • From: John Cowan <jcowan@r...>

• Prev by Date: Re: Semantic Web
• Next by Date: RE: XPointer architecture (Re: XPointer and XML Schema)
• Previous by thread: Re: Semantic Web
• Next by thread: Re: Semantic Web
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread