OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   Re: local, global (was various ontology, RDF, topic maps)

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]
  • From: Paul Tchistopolskii <paul@qub.com>
  • To: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com>, xml-dev@lists.xml.org
  • Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:09:10 -0800

From: Bullard, Claude L (Len) <clbullar@ingr.com>

> Take a look at the dot.com fallout.  People
> will believe and invest and will lose their
> shirts and others will take their shirts and
> build big pink houses on the hillsides outside
> San Jose with them.

I think dotcom game is irrelevant to technology
and the game itself is not worth disussion.

> When HTML said SGML
> was evil, some took that to heart.  When
> others said HyTime was evil, some took that
> to heart.  Both times, the sayers were wrong.

Do you really think that propaganda is really
*that* powerfull ?

Mass-developers were ignoring SGML and related tools
for 15 (?) years. I think people are not that stupid
to ignore really good things for *that* long.

I have the impression that SGML elitists really
think that for years people were using 'other tools'
( like perl and TeX and , yes -  MS Word ) instead
of using SGML-based tools because people are stupid.

I don't buy it. 15 years in computing  is incredibly
long time. Perl is less than 15 years old, Python is
less than 15 years old. Linux is about 15 years old -
not talking about MS Word.

When some tools are ignored for 15 years, I think
this means that those tools are not providing a
simple answers to simple questions.

"result tree fragment..." damn it .... ( nevermind, please ).

> It took experience and a lot of hard work
> for people to find the baby in the bathwater,

Pardon? Where is the baby?

> but they have and there are remarkably good
> systems coming out as a result that have little
> in common with the original HTMLOverAll systems.
> They look like... SGML + hypermedia circa 1989
> with better graphics.  So far so good.

... You mean that with those systems I can safely
modify the schema of my document without changing
too much of my processing code, and also I can
safely change the schema provided by some *other*
vendor, easily extending the processing tool provided
by the same vendor without too much hacking ?


Where are those SGML-based systems hiding ?

( I think you should agree that the questions I'm asking
are really simple and basic. Right ? )

> That is what we are doing here with the semantic
> web.  I started out with the "the semantic web
> is a crock" position knowing full well that the underlying
> tech and concepts do work in a limited fashion
> because, being an old guy now, I was a young
> turk when case grammars, AI, expert systems
> and all that were discussed last time.  They
> do work, in a limited fashion.  But I took
> the very pessimistic approach precisely because
> of the "idealistic" view you talk about.

Here I agree with you. I don't think that AI zombie
will dance. Do people really  found some
new-really-universal-and-scalable 'frames'
since last failure of AI ?

> As others have mentioned, some of the search
> engines are a LOT better these days.  When
> I sit with my son to do a book report on the
> Enola Gay and type that in, I don't see nearly
> as many superstitious unwanted hits as we once
> did.  That's progress.

If you are talking about google, there should be no surprise.

PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link
structure as an indicator of an individual page's value. In essence, Google interprets a
link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at more
than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; it also analyzes the page that
casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves "important" weigh more heavily and
help to make other pages "important."

So what google did it just started ranking of page
using the *very*well*known* practice, used in the
scientific publishing for ages.

I don't know how it is called in the US, but long
before the Internet, in Russia, for example,
each scientific publication had a property
"index of citation" - the number of publications,
referring to this publication.

So what google did - they just implemented some
*well*known*  *old* and *simple*  idea which is natural and
could be explained in one paragraph.

Could somebody please explain me The Semantic Web in
one paragraph ? Or maybe I have to read huge
books and to learn many new (buzz)words to understand
the design of  The Semantic Web ?

Sorry - this will not gonna fly then. If it could not be
explained in a simple way - it just not gonna fly, like
it always was, I think.



News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS