On 1/14/2015 5:42 PM, david mason wrote:
Hi,
On 14 January 2015 at 20:06, John McClure <jmccl...@hypergrove.com
<mailto:jmccl...@hypergrove.com>> wrote:
Hi David,
I think some kind of survey should be done to see what aspects
of the
'semantic web' people are interested in. We all know as a
few-year project
intended to comprehensively remake the web SW failed, but it
has many
significant aspects which are important in the long term that
SMW purported
to support.
A survey is good. I just started an "SMW Ontologies" thread that I
hope can get to the heart of the matter, maybe revealing how much
interest there is seeing SMW be the semantic web knowledge
management tool it claims to want to be, or whether it's just an
easier reporting engine for folks to prime & use.
My thought is your outline included too much of your own methodology,
which made it too dense, particularly since it would require many
people's participation.
Yes there's alot of my own methodology, one open to improvement within
constraints imposed by SMW/MW. I'd be happy to debate whether my
methodology is something closer to a best practice than the feeling of
"Mac, you're on your own" I get downloading the SMW extension. In other
words, something is better than nothing because nothing drives people
towards orthogonal solutions like Cargo and Wikidata. Said differently,
if SMW is a "semantic web" engine, then it should act & look like one
darn it. Right now, it is an empty shell, one that seems to be rapidly
losing market share. Let's fix this?
Technically Halo forked /both/ MW & SMW codebases, never unforking
as they indicated they'd do
-- a strategic blunder of great/sad consequence.
Btw, I explicitly referencd re-using Halo code in the "SMW
Ontologies" thread I started.
I don't think this is a winning strategy since the code was considered
to be fairly rough and would need considerable updating. It could be
used as a prototype if there were interest. People who saw what SMW+
could do were impressed, and would be today, it was just clunky to
actually use.
?? Well, certainly I'm not saying to re-release the entire SMW+
subsystem, only the OntologyBrowser, just one component packakged within
the SMWHalo extension. I don't want to talk about resurrecting SMW+,
just want to leverage key portions of its free code.
Today I would focus on form management tools, and better ways to
curate properties, classes and instances (pages), as well as their
relationships. That's really difficult using triples in SMW unless one
is really careful.
meetoo - that's the OntologyBrowser.
I suppose it could be easier with Cargo, given it's based on SQL
tables, but I guess you can't use properties across classes or
instances or have inherent relationships (without really stepping away
from how SMW works today).
Cargo has no centrally managed data dictionary; its tables & columns can
be named whatever by whomever whenever.
Enjoy LODing that! :-o)
When one is careful in organizing content and using conventions,
reasonable content management and visualizations, such as those
created by the MITRE people, can be supported, but in the latter case
since they're not part of SMW I don't think they're widely used, and
content management has to be done manually or through arbitrary scripts.
These are also the kinds of tools that might support less technical
users, and sharing data between sites.
could you post a link to what you're talking about here?
On the other hand it was unsustainable in relation to
main code because of its sometimes rough design as well as its
dual open
source/commercial nature.
I see this 'commercial' claim alot, and wonder where it comes from.
We all (Yaron included!) have a 'commercial' reqt to survive, so I
dont see the problem.
The only thing commercial about it was/are the support contracts
DIQA offers, no harm in that I think.
Nothing at all wrong with commercial support, but I think parts of it
were proprietary, and it had the air of an upsell, which is
understandable but in general the SMW community doesn't really operate
in a shrink wrap way.
oh yes, there's some Microsoft file format interfaces they sell
commercially. No that wasn't the problem, it was that they forked both
codebases and didnt fulfill a stated intention to un-fork. Their view
became clear when someone had the gall to publish a WAT that packaged a
patch utility; understandably this enraged SMW Project developers. Said
all in my humble opinion, as I wasn't there but only have read the
archives here and talked to a few persons about the history.
At the same time, I firmly believe current SMW Project developers
understand that we, as users now left holding the SMW+ bag, are coming
from and going towards completely different places. IOW my sense is they
understand we are to be helped, not ridiculed or reviled. I cannot tell
you the number of times I've gone on mw chat, to be explicitly told each
time to get a f**n' life and switch from MW 1.17 to MW 1.24 -- it is so
annoying to deal with that!!!
I definitely think John overreacted and should apologize.
I want to be clear that I did express an apology on-list for any
mistakes I've made explaining my views.
I privately exchanged emails with Yaron on this too and don't know
what else y'all want me to do now.
I'm sorry I missed that but am glad.
David
As a postscript to those suggesting what < I should do >, I gently
suggest that others kinda-probably don't need your protection. :)
best regards/john
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
