[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
No disagreement. I was commenting that if we
took those criteria too seriously, we'd wipe
out a lot of nascent efforts. The Semantic
Web may never live up to the hype. But let's
be clear that the technologies undergirding it
are not new, have been proven to work in
some applications, and continue to work in
those applications. The difference here is
whether or not a unified namespace approach
will enable expert system type applications
to scale to very large systems. That was the
wall they hit in earlier work. I wouldn't
ignore the KR community. That is a mistake
and produces the kind of technical adventures
that characterized the dot.bomb.
I think it will germinate and will produce
some useful products. After all, there are
proven designs for flying cars back to the
1930's. They never became popular but that
hasn't stopped the research into building
better ones. Given the long waits at the
airports these days, they may be about to
become popular again. Charter flight services
are booming. ;-)
But I won't buy stock *just* because a company
promises SW technology.
len
From: Bill de hOra [mailto:dehora@eircom.net]
> From: Bullard, Claude L (Len):
> >
> Do the other as well. Based on those,
> the Semantic Web, DAML, OIL, and maybe
> RDF are headed for the heap too.
Maybe. I wouldn't describe the semantic web as a technology, more
like a story of what might be; it's an old story really.
|
