Lists Home |
Date Index |
Didier PH Martin <email@example.com> writes:
> To me, I can envision semantic webs limited to certain
> communities having a good balance and check process. In other
> words: small islands of useful meta-data in a see of crap.
As has been observed, defining good meta-data is hard: you are often end
up trying to invent abstract semantics for things because the concerned
parties have a hard time agreeing on the concrete semantics. As such,
one should expect that the good meta-data starts off as small
concentrated efforts. If it truly has value people will adopt it
(Snomed being a good example in our field).
The rush to standardization of everything XML should tell us that people
value meta-data with broad scope. However, people constantly try to get
ahead of the game and institutionalize their metadata without having any
proof of its value. Personally, I'll write no schema before it's time,
and never consider a schema the final world...