Lists Home |
Date Index |
- To: "Mike Champion" <firstname.lastname@example.org>,<email@example.com>
- Subject: RE: RE: [xml-dev] Semantic Web
- From: "Dare Obasanjo" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:52:24 -0700
- Thread-index: AcI39+3JG3P05PvURIiG2EvOpbDL7QAGyQBQ
- Thread-topic: RE: [xml-dev] Semantic Web
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Champion [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:34 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Re: RE: [xml-dev] Semantic Web
> 7/30/2002 1:11:06 PM, "Dare Obasanjo" <email@example.com> wrote:
> >Google is the semantic web.
> > http://ftrain.com/google_takes_all.html
> 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 about it.
> 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.
This is paraphrased [and mangled] from conversations with Joshua Allen
who brings this up every time I talk to him about the SemWeb; "A
semantic web where only metadata published by the owner of the content
is available is next to useless. The value of the SemWeb is being able
to obtain metadata about content from any source"
PITHY WORDS OF WISDOM
Chances are that the gift needing returning will be the one missing the
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no