31–40 of 42 posts
Maybe a smart pre-emptive strike against twitters annotations?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with the semantic web is you need a universal ontology. i.e. you need everyone to agree on the same thing. Cory Doctorow's Metacrap explains more http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
That's a strawman. You in fact don't need a "universal ontology," you just need people to agree on first principles (e.g. URLs are unique, there are things called triples, etc.)
Of course, that leads to the question : is that ontology actually relevant or is it just important that the data is structured?
This is huge for many reasons, but namely, this could finally lead to the "semantic web." Metaweb's video, which is linked to in the article, explains part of the "how". The problem with the semantic web is that many need to embrace it. Many people need to tag text with these "bar codes" (uniquely identified entities). That can take a big effort and there has to be a ROI for this big undertaking. The other is that th…
This sort of thinking seems to be common in people who like the idea of the semantic Web but who are pessimistic about its implementation. I'm not sure it's going to be the case.
As we've seen happen with other technologies, I suspect we'll see a MetaWeb style approach of "deriving the barcodes" from existing and unformatted content. This will not be a 100% accurate process, but will be "good enough" to make the semantic Web a realistic and large scale underpinning to the next generation of search systems.
This is huge for many reasons, but namely, this could finally lead to the "semantic web." Metaweb's video, which is linked to in the article, explains part of the "how". The problem with the semantic web is that many need to embrace it. Many people need to tag text with these "bar codes" (uniquely identified entities). That can take a big effort and there has to be a ROI for this big undertaking. The other is that th…
Many people need to tag text with these "bar codes" (uniquely identified entities). This sort of thinking seems to be common in people who like the idea of the semantic Web but who are pessimistic about its implementation. I'm not sure it's going to be the case. As we've seen happen with other technologies, I suspect we'll see a MetaWeb style approach of "deriving the barcodes" from existing and unformatted content.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with the semantic web is you need a universal ontology. i.e. you need everyone to agree on the same thing. Cory Doctorow's Metacrap explains more http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
That's a strawman. You in fact don't need a "universal ontology," you just need people to agree on first principles (e.g. URLs are unique, there are things called triples, etc.)
Sure, if you weren't concerned exactness and lack of ambiguity, you could expand the world of triples into a giant, poorly organized collection of information. It would be kind of like the web. The approach "works" but we, uh, already have the web.
Also, the Doctorow document excellent. Anyone expected naive metadata to be extensible should have a reply to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a strawman. You in fact don't need a "universal ontology," you just need people to agree on first principles (e.g. URLs are unique, there are things called triples, etc.)
I think you do need a universal ontology if you want to make the kind of progress the semantic web people talk about. If you just have a bunch of small, separately created ontologies, the situation can indeed seem great until each expands. Then the intersections and ambiguities become huge. Sure, if you weren't concerned exactness and lack of ambiguity, you could expand the world of triples into a giant, poorly organ…
Inferencing solves this problem.
Are there anyone here that downloaded and played with their data set (PG dump). I have fiddled with one of their table to process their Wikipedia data. I think Google bought it for their supposedly wicked-fast GraphDB.
I haven't downloaded the data set for the fact that it doesn't look like the accompanying MQL server is available for download. Am I correct on this? MQL is sweet (e.g. give me all of Tom Cruise's movies since 1995 that have cost over 10million dollars to make), but what good is the data dump if all I can do is resort to simplistic SQL queries? MQL support is just as important as the data itself. I'm sure that I'm ov…
This is huge for many reasons, but namely, this could finally lead to the "semantic web." Metaweb's video, which is linked to in the article, explains part of the "how". The problem with the semantic web is that many need to embrace it. Many people need to tag text with these "bar codes" (uniquely identified entities). That can take a big effort and there has to be a ROI for this big undertaking. The other is that th…
The problem with the semantic web is you need a universal ontology. i.e. you need everyone to agree on the same thing. Cory Doctorow's Metacrap explains more http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm
What about Facebook's new metadata? What are people in the semantic web area saying about that?