xml-dev - RE: RDF, the "semantic web", and the nadir of AI (was RE: Realist icprop

[Bill dehOra <wdehora@cromwellmedia.co.uk>]

Yes, sounds better than 'annotated web', which is what I was using until now
:-)

-Bill de hÓra

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Thomas B. Passin [mailto:tpassin@home.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 2:15 PM
>To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org
>Cc: uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com; 'Dave Winer'; Bullard, Claude L (Len)
>Subject: Re: RDF, the "semantic web", and the nadir of AI (was RE:
>Realist ic proposals to the W3C?)
>
>
>How about "Associative Web" instead of "Semantic Web"? I
>think that "associate" probably covers everything everyone's
>brought up, but at the same time is more specific and
>evocative than "semantic".  Services associate a provider
>with a consumer.  You could associate a meaning with a term
>or resource (if you could figure out how to specify it).
>And assigning a property/value pair to something can easily
>be looked upon as asserting an association.
>
>When I first heard the term "Semantic Web", I immediately
>thought of Tony Buzan's Mind Maps.  I use mind maps a lot.
>They work by associations.  It's interesting, but they
>aren't really edge-labeled graphs as we usually think of an
>edge-labeled graph, nor are they the node-centric style
>either.  A mind map has one node, in the center, and edges
>radiating out from the central node and branching.  Branches
>can be cross-linked.  The nodes are invisible at the branch
>points, and never contain any content.
>
>A lot of human thinking seems to be done through
>association.  "Associative Web" suggests, to my mind,
>something that augments my thinking and creativity.  Just
>what I'm hoping for!
>
>Cheers,
>
>Tom Passin
>