Lists Home |
Date Index |
Alaric B Snell wrote:
> This kind of thing, I think, is what will make the Semantic Web hard to
> realise, in business circles at least.
Others realized this too:
And I think this is also the main problem behind the lack of
public fee-based B2C web service offerings.
I still have hope the semantic web will show some value when used
inside enterprises and between business partners. Consider the
sections of a somewhat larger bank: asset management, private banking
and retail customer service all ultimately trade securities (among
doing other stuff), but they tend to use quite a different
nomenclature. That's a signifikant cost factor in streamlining the
underlying IT infrastructure, we could do it quite a bit faster if
we had hints whether two terms used by different people should mean
the same thing or not.
Is there a way to plant the idea with the paper shufflers that IT
can actually do more than being a big filing cabinet for documents
with reasonably comfortable access?
> Efforts like Wikipedia and so on,
> of course, are far more likely to happily embrace things like the SW...
> No matter how we hate it, it looks like the Web will be primarily for
> human consumption for the time being at least, I guess :-/
This is about to change, B2B is in full swing. Currently, it is mostly
based on bilateral agreements within a long term partnership (or, well,
unilateral enforcements, as it happens when GM tells their smaller
'partners' "use this software to bid on our e-marketplace").
I suspect over some time the data model used in communication will
stabilize and creep into the core systems of the enterprises, with or
without the help of Oracle and PeopleSoft, and then the *real* rush