201–209 of 209 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t really understand this argument, because there already are lies published on the internet. What difference does it make if those lies are published in a standardized machine readable format or not?
What's the point of having the marks at all if they are not actually correct?
It's really too bad that XML+XSLT didn't take off as the "replacement" for HTML. Before you recoil in horror hear me out... Web pages are a giant mess of content and presentation, and CSS doesn't really help much. XML is at least a way of describing data in a meaningful way. , , , etc. XSLT provided a way of formatting XML in the browser . Sure the internet would still be full of inconsistent content structures, but…
> XSLT provided a way of formatting XML in the browser. Actually, that was XSL:FO. XSLT is transformation, not formatting; of course you could translate to (X)HTML with embedded styles, or XSL:FO or something else that includes formatting, but XSLT doesn't do formatting itself.
Typical workflow is: XML -> XSL-T -> XSL-FO
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm working on a project with a React frontend. I think I never tried it on my phone. It probably works but the site is really meant for the desktop and I don't know if it makes sense on a small display. However... I'm writing this on my phone so HN is part of the mobile web and it works well. I read the post on twobithistory.org on my phone and that also works well. I doubt that they have an app and even if they did…
> 57m used by phone calls You are an unusual smartphone user. For most people, it is 0m.
https://abcnews.go.com/WN/cell-phones-demography-nielsen-dat...
https://hackernoon.com/how-much-time-do-people-spend-on-thei...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Third, you can't force people to use the correct semantics. They'll use them wrong on purpose for fun and profit. Mark some disturbing content as wholesome, mark it as whatever is popular at the moment to get it in front of more eyeballs, mark it as something only tangentially related in the hope there's a cross over of market, mark it wrong because they don't actually know better.
I don’t really understand this argument, because there already are lies published on the internet. What difference does it make if those lies are published in a standardized machine readable format or not?
A machine-targeted web structure that contains some lies is not useful for machines because they can't filter out those lies yet. It might become useful when they can (but that might be a hard-AI problem), but it's simply not usable until that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with all this is that Google, Facebook, Linkedin et al are private companies, so their knowledge graphs are, well, theirs . The idea with the semantic web was that it would be open and it would belong to its users, not to some cabal of giant corporations that would use it to control the internets. That notion of openness and co-authorship of the knowledge on the web is now as dead as the parrot in the Pyt…
IIRC, Common Crawl exposes the semantic data from the sites they crawl. One could build their own knowledge graph (or at least bootstrap one) from that and other available data sources (DBPedia, WikiData etc.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Try expressing not such a vague concept, but a concrete, real world application that actual stakeholders would be interested in investing into. You will find that: A) It's probably not that valuable B) None of the hard problems are technological
You‘re right, I didn’t go into concrete detail. It‘s also hard to describe but the best analogy I can come up with: picture a CMS that actually is about _content_ instead of being tied to presentation. So e.g. writing an article about a certain historical event at a certain place consists of stringing all the information and relationships together. Bringing the correct pieces together eliminates errors and gives a pi…
You're giving an example about an improved CMS. If I imagine myself in the shoes of any actual stakeholder who's got a bunch of employees using (or is paying for the development of) a nontrivial CMS system, I don't really see why they would consider your proposed features as needed and valuable. They don't have a problem with referencing the correct Venice, they can say what they want to say as accurately they want with the current CMS systems. If they're writing an article, then either the weather forecast and flight connections would be relevant to the intended message and included by the writer/editor, or otherwise they should be avoided in order not to distract readers from what the publisher wants. Similarly, having 'backlinks' may be considered harmful if the publisher doesn't want the reader to easily go to another resource.
That is the point of looking at the benefit to stakeholders. It doesn't matter if some approach will or will not "create long-lasting contribution to mankind", that's not why technologies get chosen - if the stakeholders who are making the decision on whether to use this technology have an incentive to do so, it will get used, and if they don't have such an incentive, then the technology will die.
And that's the prime weakness of semantic web - its usefulness requires content creators to adopt the technology, but it doesn't provide any strong incentives for these content creators to do so; the main potential benefits accrue to someone else e.g. the general public, not to those who would need to bear the costs of adapting the content. I don't see how it can be successful without addressing this important misalignment of incentives, since incentives matter far more than technology.
The author of semantic web forgot about money. What is the profit of website owner if he freely shares markup?
Nothing "happened to" the Semantic Web. It's here, and it's growing in utility and capability as the technology matures. What isn't necessarily growing is understanding of what the Semantic Web really is, who it's for, how to use SemWeb capabilities, etc. I'll accept some responsibility for that last bit, as somebody who has been active in promoting, and advocating for the adoption of, SemWeb tech. I could do more /…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Functions done in XSLT were a nightmare. Did you "push" or did you "pull"?
> Did you "push" or did you "pull"? I think you're proving my point. :-) More specifically, we defined parameterized components that could be composed to form the output. The definition of those components was incredibly verbose, as was the instantiation, and it was tightly coupled to parts of the domain model in surprising ways. IIRC WebDevs ended up having to work a step removed from the final XSLT, using some DSL…
And how does my question prove your point?
I am asking, because I really would like to understand, what happened there.