Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: dannyayers.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to dannyayers.com.

Comments · 7

  1. RDF promotes interoperability and extensibility by Finin · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Why the Semantic Web Will Fail
    Stephen's argument is based on the belief that "The Semantic Web will never work because it depends on businesses working together, on them cooperating." He says:

    "But the big problem is they believed everyone would work together:
    • would agree on web standards (hah!)
    • would adopt a common vocabulary (you don't say)
    • would reliably expose their APIs so anyone could use them (as if)"
    While the argument he makes is grounded in his distrust of corporations, which I share to some degree, his second point above is off the mark, at least for RDF.

    One of the features of the W3C's model (based on RDF) is that it doesn't push the idea that everyone should adopt the same vocabulary (or ontology) for a topic or domain. Instead it offers a way to publish vocabularies with some semantics, including how terms in one vocabulary relate to terms in another. In addition, the framework makes it trivial to publish data in which you mix vocabularies, making statements about a person, for example, using terms drawn from FOAF, Dublin Core and others.

    The RDF approach was designed with interoperability and extensibility in mind, unlike many other approaches. RDF is showing increasing adoption, showing up in products by Oracle, Adobe and Microsoft, for example.

    If this approach doesn't continue to flourish and help realize the envisioned "web of data", and it might not after all, it will have left some key concepts, tested and explored, on the table for the next push. IMHO, the 'semantic web' vision -- a web of data for machines and their users -- is inevitable.

  2. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Semantic Web Under Suspicion

    A rebuttal.

  3. Re:Podcasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Atom 1.0 vs RSS 2.0

    Actually, RSS 1.0 also supports enclosures although the syntax for them is slightly different than it is for RSS 2.0. See this page for more info.

  4. Re:RSS 2.0 vs. Atom vs. RSS 1.0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Atom 1.0 vs RSS 2.0

    See this discussion on enclosures in RSS 1.0 versus RSS 2.0.

  5. discussions about winfs and rdf by scupper · · Score: 3, Interesting · on RDF For Desktop Metadata?

    Danny Ayers has some interesting discussion on his blog about winfs and rdf. There's also discussion of Jon Udell's Questions about Longhorn.

  6. discussions about winfs and rdf by scupper · · Score: 3, Interesting · on RDF For Desktop Metadata?

    Danny Ayers has some interesting discussion on his blog about winfs and rdf. There's also discussion of Jon Udell's Questions about Longhorn.

  7. Re:The semantic web... by SandHawk · · Score: 5, Informative · on RDF and OWL Are W3C Recommendations

    Okay, I thought those were relatively pleasant reads, which can be a plus. (And I wanted to say something fast, before slashdot buried any response I might make...)

    My actual response at the time is brief and chatty. The response from Dan Brickley is also short and sweet. Neither of us felt it was worth the time to reply point-by-point.

    The "misquoting" is to suggest that my "how you buy a book on the Semantic Web" sketch should possibly cause Jeff Bezos to lose sleep. I was trying to explain an experimental protocol in a way I hoped my grandmother could understand (seriously!) and Shirky thinks I'm sketching out Amazon's doom? I don't expect the Semantic Web to doom anyone but folks who want to keep data exchange laborious.