Lists Home |
Date Index |
7/30/2002 1:11:06 PM, "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>Google is the semantic web.
I find this article both interesting, because it does sketch out
a plausible scenario for the SW ... but infuriating because it
blithely assumes that Google pays attention to metadata.
The key to Google's success is that ignores what a page
says it is about (beyond the words themselves, of course)
and uses "observational metadata" based on what others say
So, what's in it for Google to start caring about
"metacrap" http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm ?
I can believe that it will create its own "observational
ontologies" based on higher level patterns of who says
what about whom, but I doubt if they will start believing
self-descriptions anytime soon.
The other thing I both liked and disliked about the ftrain article
was its treatment of how various vermin (dictators, criminals,
the direct marketing industry) could subvert it for their
own purposes. Compelling examples, but why are they at
the end as an afterthought? These clowns are the reason
that Google ignores metadata in the first place. In order
for Google to take metadata seriously, the roaches will have to
hide out of sight until the semantic web is established, and
then come out of the woodwork and subvert it. The trouble is,
the spammers, pornographers, scam artists, etc. are on the
bleeding edge of e-business (and reputedly the only ones
making money). They're most likely to be early adopters,
webs of trust notwithstanding. Look what Enron did with
"webs of trust" :~(