Live data from Hacker News

What happened to the Semantic Web? (2017) [pdf]

ht.acm.org

61–65 of 65 posts

Re: What happened to the Semantic Web? (2017) [pdf]

#61
post #9

I was replying to another commenter, but they deleted their post. I still think my response is legitimate, and I'd like to discuss. I'm including the post and my response to it: > This might be an unpopular opinion, but the Semantic Web was yet another idea that only could've come from Architecture Astronauts. Neither web developers nor web users wanted or needed it, but the Astronauts just kept pushing forward, with…

The irony here is that Google was built on the light semantics of the hyperlink: the anchor tag is the semantic web, giving you information that a server-side image map or Java applet or Flash movie or JS-driven navigation couldn't reliably identify without putting a hell of a lot more effort into your crawler. There were probably always limits to how widely useful (or adopted) a single coherent set of resource defin…

'Users want search, first without having to put too much thought into modeling what they're looking for'

But Ads ?

And to the next one phrasing: 'light semantics...'

But google want it (company-patented) exclusive for themself ?

left me confused... (-;

Re: What happened to the Semantic Web? (2017) [pdf]

#62
post #13

I've though about improving [[Roam]] with semantics but maybe this is a fools errand. Human's use of language is somewhere between the bag-of-word model and part-of-speech tagging. Neither a word salad nor a constructive proof based in first-order-logic. I had a [[meeting]] with [[John Doe]] about [[Project X]]. Is much more natural then: _:meeting1 a schema:Meeting; schema:participant [ a foaf:Person; rdfs:label "Jo…

Lojban is a good hybrid as a spoken conversational language that is logically precise enough to be parsable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban

Re: What happened to the Semantic Web? (2017) [pdf]

#63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony here is that Google was built on the light semantics of the hyperlink: the anchor tag is the semantic web, giving you information that a server-side image map or Java applet or Flash movie or JS-driven navigation couldn't reliably identify without putting a hell of a lot more effort into your crawler. There were probably always limits to how widely useful (or adopted) a single coherent set of resource defin…

> light semantics of the hyperlink: the anchor tag is the semantic web, giving you information that a server-side image map or Java applet or Flash movie or JS-driven navigation couldn't reliably identify This, 100x. Complex and precise ontologies don't survive a distributed environment because communication is competitive. Publishers don't seek to describe themselves "accurately" (as if everyone could agree what tha…

Great point. Individual publishers are to be trusted so little in describing their own content that Google completely ignores the keywords meta tag (and also description now I think).

Re: What happened to the Semantic Web? (2017) [pdf]

#64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The irony here is that Google was built on the light semantics of the hyperlink: the anchor tag is the semantic web, giving you information that a server-side image map or Java applet or Flash movie or JS-driven navigation couldn't reliably identify without putting a hell of a lot more effort into your crawler. There were probably always limits to how widely useful (or adopted) a single coherent set of resource defin…

'Users want search, first without having to put too much thought into modeling what they're looking for' But Ads ? And to the next one phrasing: 'light semantics...' But google want it (company-patented) exclusive for themself ? left me confused... (-;

> left me confused...

is what your comment does to me. Could you expand what you are trying to say?

Post reply on HN