howdy--
I have been following Berners-Lee's "semantic web" idea for at least a
year now. Tim is a great read, and I wish he'd write more, but I think
he's a little too dreamy about his semantic web. The fact is that
people are much better at making sense of data than computers or
networks or standards or ____ will be for a long while, and when that
long while is up, it will likely be unnoticable to most.
I can't begin to imagine the stupid amount of endless tagging and
validation and resource descripting that will have to occur for the
current scheme for all of that to yield a simple "Oh, yeah?" button.
I'd still be deciding for myself anyway.
"The Semantic Web is a universal space for anything which can be
expressed in classical logic. " --TBL
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Rules.html
I think I'd rather have a "What for?" button, myself.
And most importantly a way to ask somebody I trust, RIGHT NOW,
regardless of where they are or what they are doing. Email is sorta
slick that way, newsgroups and lists are, too. But instant messaging
from my current device to that person's device is really the ticket.
Text is almost always more efficient and more considerate of peoples'
time.
My semantic web is already up and running, and I suspect that most
peoples' are. It's simply the infrastructure that ties the knowledge
and reasoning power of those I trust together. That is a force that the
semantic web will not surpass anytime soon.
REBOL is a fantastic agency for a real semantic web. Not one that tries
to prove things to itself, but one that brings people together in a way
that maximizes collaborative efforts and minimizes the ill effects of
old business practices like the telephone and meetings and airline
flights and commutes. The web has proven that what is truly valuable is
attention, and attention takes time and anything that saves that goes
straight to productivity.
TBL, is in the clouds at 50,000 feet or something:
"Instead of asking machines to understand people's language, it involves
asking people to make the extra effort."
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/RDFnot.html
I don't want to make the extra effort, personally. I don't think
there's a payoff for the extra effort. Sure, it makes the web look
prettier from the clouds, but I'd rather see a million bots with a basic
concept of how to parse a sentence out looking for answers to my
questions than a quadrillion pages with extra markup.
Sure, if there were a standard that all documents adhered to that would
aid these bots, then that would be cool. The old-fashioned standard of
sentences and paragraphs and titles and sections and outlines, etc. I
don't think any more writing between the lines is going to be solving
anything. I keep hitting my "What for?" button, and nothing's coming
back.
REBOL is conquering first, because it won't have to explain why. Carl
put it very politely, and now that I re-read his post at the bottom it
seems I'm just reiterating what he has already said (terser, too, of
course :-)
T
----- Original Message -----
From: "Terry Brownell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Rebol List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 2:08 AM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: The Semantic Web - A solution?
>
> Personally, I don't see how XML and the Semantic web will gel? It
would require endless streams of coding to get my Rebol powered agent
(http://www.LFReD.com ) to get all these disconnected ontologies and
tags etc etc. to work together. I don't know, maybe I'm missing
something, but the complexity of it all is daunting. The more complex
it becomes, the less likely the majority would/could be bothered with
it.
>
> Carl said "It's better to conquer first, then explain why later."
>
> I propose a "Rebol Semantic Standard"... a universal Rebol "ontology"
if you will, that at least Rebols can agree on.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Terry Brownell
> Orion Alliance Inc.
>
> Some additional thoughts...
>
> The basic premise of the Semantic web is sound... subject, verb and
object.
> I tend to use subject and predicate for simplicity and scope.
>
> Lets look at Carls example...
>
> "mix until well distributed"
> Now I don't know about you, but the word that comes to mind is
"blend".
>
> Blend is a predicate... It means "to mix together" it could be written
thus...
> blend: ["to mix" "blend" "stir together" etc etc.]
>
> If "blend" becomes too general, then additional, more industry
specific predicates could be added.
>
> "To Blend" is a universal predicate and spans across any language in
the universe. To "mix until well distributed" means the same thing no
matter how you say it. We could call it "Snortlock" as long as we all
agree to the meaning.
>
> "Snortlock milk and chocolate."
>
> ....
>
>
> Carl wrote...
>
> Hi Scott:
>
> Thanks for posting the reference. The "semantic web" is why
> I created REBOL. In 1996 that was the vision, and it still is today.
>
> I agree with you...
>
> REBOL actually offers a better solution to this problem than XML.
> In REBOL the generation and the interpretation can be written
> within one portable language. So the sending side and the receiving
> side, as well as the message itself are all REBOL.
>
> The semantic problem is deeper than the XML guys realized.
> Tagging solves only half the battle. The association back to
> meaning is difficult, and the more you can give that association
> functional power, the better off you are.
>
> For instance, I can easily deal with the type and unit semantics:
>
> [
> milk 2 cups
> chocolate 2 tsp.
> ]
>
> but when I do:
>
> [
> mix until well distributed
> drink and enjoy
> ]
>
> it's more "function" than "data". REBOL handles this well.
>
> Don't get me wrong. I am not blasting XML. It is a heavyweight
> solution to the problem for folks who have the time and money
> to deal with it. But, for those of us on a tight budget and
> timeline, REBOL provides a more economical approach.
>
> Unfortunately, you don't want to enter this argument. It's
> better to conquer first, then explain why later.
>
> Thanks again,
>
> -Carl
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
> subject, without the quotes.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
