[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" scripsit:
> And the "self-generated" "extremely detailed and comprehensive"
> data is not available to Google?
No. There are no links to it, and even if there were, it requires
password access, which Google does not have.
> Interesting. So, one might generate a lot of RDF to classify
> a resource such that a representation can be chosen, but then
> make that RDF resource itself, a pay to play option. Thus,
> the Semantic Web becomes the upgrade option for a service.
The idea is that:
1) Basic Reuters Health news is available for free on our site,
but if you want it on your site, you must pay.
2) Professional RHI news is available at our site or your site,
but you must pay in either case.
3) Either kind of news is available with subject-matter
classification in RDF format if you want to do your own
classification of it, but then you must pay extra (partly to us,
partly to the people we license our classifications from).
> That might make the web profitable where content has some
> perceived value, and it might get a lot of people to start
> generating more RDF. It will also stratify the web.
Indeed.
> Noting the USENET example that Joshua posted: global
> ontologies work. But shoult the global ontologies themselves
> be free resources even if once applied to a given resource,
> the resources generated by using them might not be.
The top level should certainly be free. The fine-grained 100,000-plus
terms we use, probably not: someone had to work very hard to create and
maintain those.
--
One art / There is John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
No less / No more http://www.reutershealth.com
All things / To do http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
With sparks / Galore -- Douglas Hofstadter
|
