Cart
|
[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Meta-somethingorother (was the semantic webmega-permathrea
 Hi Bill, > If you look at RSS data for long enough you realize it's information > rich and that information is being produced almost totaly as > side-effect of blogging. Then maybe you go and read Metacrap, but > with your eyes opened. Off course Bill an RSS frame contains very little information. Its basically a table of contents. There are no vested interest in lying about information location. This is not the same thing for other kinds of meta data. Take for instance, the following RDF <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... Actually the only success of meta-data publishing is about publishing table of contents. People have enough incentives to be honest about providing location, date and a short description about a resource. For those who remember (approx in 1995-1994) we are still at the stage of projectX (from Apple research). As a reference for those who came to the web later on, Project X was a meta data browser. The meta-data frames where encoded into MCL (meta Data Language). Two MCL browsers where made available for free: a startree like explorer (Apple research) and a Microsoft Explorer extension (Talva). It took roughly 10 years to bring it with a new syntax (but no new semantics) to the mainstream. 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. 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. Bottom line, I really don't know if the semantic web can go beyond the table of contents or some very limited applications. This said, the table of contents wave is very welcome, I was waiting for it since more than 10 years. Yes we can say that the table of contents kind of meta data is a success. It?s a limited application in a domain where you have maximum chances to get honest data. This is not necessarily the case for other kind of meta-data. Can we call a collection of table of contents the semantic web? That is the question. Observing what is really happening, we can say that RDF or any knowledge description language can succeed in some limited applications where greedy people cannot take too much advantage of it. At first, we thought that email is cool and tremendously useful. Take a look now at your inbox now and watch what you get... So now, what are the knowledge description applications having a certain probability of success? Cheers Didier PH Martin 
|
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
|
|||||||||
