Ed, (01)
JFS>> What we really need is *not* a webified view of all data, but
>> an AJAX-ified way of reorganizing the Semantic Web and combining it
>> with other kinds of information. (02)
EB> I am going to put on my Haim Kilov hat and say I can't agree with
> this until you define your terms. (03)
I was only using the word 'webified' in the very loose sense that
has been used in many discussions. It usually implies some use of
XML and URIs. I won't attempt to define it further. (04)
I introduced the term 'AJAX-ified' as tongue-in-cheek antonym,
which I have no desire to define. I'll use a smiley face :-) (05)
EB> The Semantic Web approach is to capture the referential knowledge
> formally and derive it in a trusted way. (06)
I fully approve of that goal, but there are many more issues involved,
than just the use of XML and URIs by themselves. The fundamental issues
are semantic and pragmatic. Syntactic mechanisms, by themselves, can be
more of an obstacle than a foundation. (07)
EB> I fully agree with the idea that we need to "combine [RDF-annotated
> information] with other kinds of information", but there are two ways
> to do that -- derive the semantic markup for the other kinds, or link
> them by statistical association. (08)
Depending on how you count and what you count, there could be many more
ways. (09)
EB> All the data that is used by AJAX methods is provided by specific
> HTTP-accessible services on the servers. The data is web-accessible.. (010)
That is trivially true for that part of the processing that is done
in JavaScript on the client side. But there is no such restriction
on the server, which can do anything with any resource it owns. (011)
EB> the only question is how much of the adapter is resident on the
> source server, how much on the search server, and how much on the
> client. (012)
That word 'only' hides a lot of stuff: it is true that the client
is limited to JavaScript, but there are no restrictions on the
server and anything it may be connected to behind the scenes. (013)
EB> The idea of the Semantic Web technologies is that they are
> supporting technologies for any of several such architectures.
> They require some agent to markup the... (014)
Yes. They sweep all the hard stuff under the rug -- i.e., they
leave it to some external "agent", whose semantics is outside
the specifications and recommendations of the W3C. (015)
As I've said many times, the SemWeb is too provincial. Other
people have said that it suffers from a Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
They've carved out a little niche and ignored what goes on in
all the hardware and software that pump out web pages. (016)
Bottom line: The semantics of the Web is intimately connected
with the semantics of every system connected to the Web. You
can't have a web-only semantics or a web-only science. (017)
John (018)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (019)
|