>
http://wik.me/1#foundPages
> At each 'category' there is also a synonym ring, for example, e.g.:
>
> Person
>
> Of people, organism and causal agent May also be referred to as
> individual, mortal, somebody, someone and soul.
>
> A human being; "there was too much for one person to do".
>
> It would be interesting to see the taxonomy, for example, 'shape' is the
> first under 'people'.
> Thanks for sharing this interesting service!
> Marcia
>
> On 2/27/11 4:12 AM, "Stephen Young" <
steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> Pavithra, I think you must have misspelled "Einstein".
>
http://search.wik.me/search.htm?words=Albert+Einstein returns 20+
> concepts named for Albert Einstein - and the topmost result is the man
> himself. And that list is something you CANNOT get from Google.
>
> Clicking the top result
http://wik.me/lfn2 ("Albert Einstein") also gives
> you something you can't get from Google - a self-organised presentation of
> what
wik.me <
http://wik.me> "knows" about Einstein. Google knows
> *nothing* about Einstein but where to find pages that contain the string
> "Albert Einstein".
>
> Structured data is always going to permit greater functionality than
> keyword indexing. If it didn't, you and I wouldn't have a job ;-)
>
> But of course Google is more robust - it would have detected your spelling
> mistake and given you the most-likely valid alternative. So it should be
> with 2000 engineers and over a decade of refinement.
>
>
wik.me <
http://wik.me> can also only return results based on the data it
> has mapped, which means it's a valid alternative to Google for only a
> minority of searches. Our estimates suggest that with all organisations,
> products and services in, we should give a much better experience for
> around 65% of all searches currently made against Google. That's next.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On 26 February 2011 23:07, Pavithra <
pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
wik.me <
http://wik.me/> is another search tool with a LIST of results ..
> does not provide anything more than Google would. Google is more robust .
> This uses information from
answers.com <
http://answers.com> etc..
> The word "Albert Einstein" did not get a result at all, but a list of
> names that started with Albert and did not include Einstein.
>
> Qwiki.com actually provides information on what is typed in. When it can
> not find the actual information ( NOT A LIST) it simply says it did not
> find it. For example, if you type world's tallest building, it did not
> find any information. They need to include lot more data sets..
>
> Quiki.com seems to be more in the direction of web 3.0 mobile apps with
> plenty of room to grow. But the audio is very mechanical, unlike
> Watson;s voice. ( :-) )!
>
> Pavithra
>
> --- On Fri, 2/25/11, Stephen Young <
steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Young <
steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] the data mining craze
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <
ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 6:28 PM
>
>
> We actually characterised qwiki as the reverse
wik.me <
http://wik.me>
> when we first saw it ;-) All style no substance. There may have been
> some bitterness ;-) - we both applied to launch at TechCrunch Disrupt last
> year. They got in, we didn't.
>
> I'm frequently amazed by what captures (and fails to capture) the
> imagination of the technology pundit. We presented a site/app that is a
> quantum improvement over Web 2.0 structured data plays like Freebase and
> Factual. Among other things our video demonstrated that anyone could
> change complex structured data with simple twitter-like comments - and yet
> we didn't make the cut. Qwiki went on to win the Techrunch Disrupt prize
> - followed soon after by some serious venture funding.
>
> Mind you, this forum is little different. I've just announced the
> ontological equivalent of a flying car here and received no more interest
> than a few private messages ;-)
>
>