[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: [xtm-wg] Re: The Future of TopicMaps.Org
Jean Delahousse wrote: > > Murray, > > I think you are right "Semantic Web" is a bag. > > What defines Semantic Web is what you find in the bag today, that will give > you an idea of what Semantic Web adress as technical subjects. > > It's what have been done by the European Commission who is getting ready to > help semantic web technologies. Maybe I can earn that post in Barcelona after all... :-) > I went to that first presentation of "semantic web" works and projects last > november and here are some of the issues adressed : > - automatic metadata over content > - automatic metadata over multimedia document > - classification and navigation over content using metadata > - Organization of subjects (TM / RDF) > - Ontology tools > - Multilingual ontology (more or less universal) > - Navigation tools (text, graphical...) over text or multimedia documents... > - .... > > If you look closely and try to understand the articulation between those > differents layers of projects, I think one can get a pretty clear idea of > what is "semantic web". I'm much more comfortable with the idea that *a* semantic web is being co-developed by a lot of communities, using many different technologies, with some overall gameplan but no dictatorial (ie., monopolistic) control over that design than I am with the idea that one person has an idea of something called "The Semantic Web(c)" that is developed according to one vision, one set of proprietary plans, one team. That team wouldn't likely operate in the public interest and would be driven by a lot of money, and would also likely represent only a small portion of the thinking and development that is already going on. I'm also worried about the "not-invented-here" syndrome, which is marginally acceptable when we're talking about "reinventing" existing technologies, but I'd hate to see that applied to something so important as representing the thoughts and ideas of humanity, especially as we move forward with computer systems that will operate on those ideas. Not to pick on the Scientific American article, but the *very* first thing I looked at was the diagram on page 39. The description on the facing page says "Elaborate, precise automated searches will be possible when semantics are widespread on the Web. Here a search program correctly locates a person based on an assortment of partially remembered knowledge..." There's about a half dozen errors in that sentence. "Semantics" are not ever going to be widespread on the Web, information is (now I understand why Sam Hunting hates that word). Computers don't "remember" anything, they store it, and they don't store "knowledge" they store data. And the search doesn't locate a person, it locates some information about a person. I realize this is simply a magazine article, but these kinds of errors seem so prevalent (the latter is a design error in RDF) that I worry that we have an uphill battle in trying to design things correctly. I think we're going to really rely on our "elders" in the field to point out these types of category errors. And not to pick on the W3C here either. Their ability to bring people together based on their visibility can't be overstated. I hope they act responsibly given that power. Okay, so I've stated my fear. What might be my vision? I think there are *at least* two communities that need each other right now, those who have long directed research into the study of knowledge representation, and those interested in designing and implementing computer systems to represent human knowledge. I see quite a number of activities, and it's unlikely that we'll see coordination between them all (due to philosophical, political, language and other differences), but we can still try to glean from them useful design ideas. I don't see that coordination occurring necessarily in any specific vendor forum, rather between the gamut of *individuals* that compose those various communities. We need to reach out to everyone to bring these people together, to at the very least gain their feedback in locating when we've strayed a bit off the path. We'll of course receive conflicting ideas given that these communities don't all agree with each other. I hope whatever fora are chosen for this communication doesn't exclude anyone (by virtue of membership, cost, etc.). And in the end, it won't be perfect, but that's okay. I agree that we can't really see where this will lead, but I'm never comfortable stepping entirely into the dark. Even a little bit of light (ie., direction) is a good thing. I've not seen anything that begins to flesh out an architecture for this sort of thing, perhaps save Doug Englebart's OHS or Ted Nelson's Xanadu (not that I think they are particularly comparable). That architecture is what I'm trying to point out is missing. > Let's compare the work done in the last 15 years to allowed computers to > communicate with each other through worldwide networks and the semantic web > initiative. I don't think anyone had a clear schema of what will be the > final result of all the work done on very different level to allow computer > to exchange so easily, but all the partial initiatives and a very general > schema like "lets all those lonely computers connected to each other" gave a > good result. > > I think the same kind of think will happen for the Semantic Web : a schema > like "lets all those documents organized, linked, sharabled and processable > by smart soft and by humans" should be enough to get somethink quite > interesting and usefull. Yes. We've assembled some of the best and brightest in the "extended room," so I expect we'll see real results, but we can gain some measure of economy if we have some idea where we're headed. Above I mentioned the idea of listening to our "elders", by which I don't want to imply any advanced age but rather that we listen carefully to those who've tread these paths before (the same advice I'd give anyone on any path). An avant garde still must intercommunicate, and in fact the most progress we've made as a race has come about when there was the most intercommunication. So if history is any indication we're likely to be successful; we've certainly improved our ability technically to intercommunicate, at the very least. Hopefully we have gained in our ability to also communicate. Now I've begun to ramble. Must be my stomach calling... Murray ........................................................................... Murray Altheim <mailto:altheim@eng.sun.com> XML Technology Center Sun Microsystems, Inc., MS MPK17-102, 1601 Willow Rd., Menlo Park, CA 94025 In the evening The rice leaves in the garden Rustle in the autumn wind That blows through my reed hut. -- Minamoto no Tsunenobu To Post a message, send it to: xtm-wg@eGroups.com To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC