Hi Ruben,
On Wed, 7/6/16, Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com> wrote:
"Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large."
bullet point - Wants are getting a little ahead of wishes, as usual :(
What people already believe about Linked Data is that {an SQL right outer join
of Category Name Elements on Topic Name Elements in a homogeneous name space -
e.g. counts grouped by Category Name} is a unique vector. SQL has fewer shades
of promiscuity than SPARQL.
This is not a commercial deal breaker ... rather: a long ago verbal contract,
possibly signed under duress, with your Second Grade Teacher. When she said
"2+2=4" although substantiation would forthcoming, her work product was
guaranteed against material defects. The contract is still in effect,
world-wide. No Nobel Prizes to be had here. Wolfgang Pauli already won - The
Pauli Exclusion Principle means that "2+2=5" is, in Pauli's words, "Not Even
Wrong !!!". Little justice in the prize judging, BTW. Nuns (I had Dominicans)
have been communicating the same message for centuries. Mistakes were made.
Knuckles jumped in front of wooden rulers on a regular basis, etc. :)
Ruben ...
"One of the main problems I see is how our community (now particularly
thinking about the scientific subgroup) receives submissions of novel work."
I think ...
Maybe the problem is the identification of "novel work". Interoperability can
depend on the novel nature of the work or Induced Knuckle PTSD. Just a guess,
but not many Software Patents mention Nuns or knuckles. Somebody might do a
survey though.
Ruben ...
" We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view, where anything
that can be measured with numbers is largely favored over anything that cannot."
I think ...
True enough.
In addition ...
1) The arbiters of taste (paying customers) went to Second Grade, and in
subsequent steps the first professional trick they learned was writing a annual
balance sheet. Content: (12 Monthly Values) (4 Quarterly sums) (1 Annual sum)
2) All of us folk, OTOH, may have encountered von Neumann Architecture first.
A balance sheet is not von Neuman Architecture. The 17 pigeon holes are
"smart" or so you evangelize, but all will be for naught if you relabel the
pigeon holes. Actually, the birds won't care, but you will unsettle the
pigeons mightily because they consider von Neumann Architecture a disruptive
technology, and always will.
----------------------------------------------------------------
It just seems to me that - knowing that web discovery is prone at least 17
pigeon hole misdemeanors and probably all seven deadly sins as well - it is
wise to proceed stepwise before accepting the web of things identification of
reputable brands of truth.
Some English guy said it a whole lot better, BTW ...
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains,
however improbable, must be the truth.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of
Sherlock Holmes
--Gannon
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, Ruben Verborgh <ruben.verbo...@ugent.be> wrote:
Subject: Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?
To: "Kingsley Idehen" <kide...@openlinksw.com>
Cc: "public-lod" <public-lod@w3.org>
Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 11:38 AM
Hi,
This is a very important question for our community,
given that smart agents once were an important theme.
Actually, the main difference we could bring with the
SemWeb
is that our clients could be decentralized
and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.
One of the main problems I see is how our community
(now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
receives submissions of novel work.
We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented
view,
where anything that can be measured with numbers
is largely favored over anything that cannot.
Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
This discourages working on such themes.
Hence, I see much talent and time going to
incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
More than a decade of SemWeb research
has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.
So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
how can we as a community be more open
to novel and disruptive technologies?
Best,
Ruben
