Is The Semantic Web A Pipe Dream?

wdebruij asks: "I'm currently writing a small program for sharing information over the internet. For categorizing and indexing this information I want to use RDF and the semantic web as described by the WWW consortium, but since the documentation says nothing about a standard dictionary I seriously doubt we will ever have such a general information index. The Open Directory Project has written it's directory in RDF, but does anyone know of another 'standard' dictionary?" The whole point behind the "semantic web" concept is that data is organized online in such a manner, that a variety of different, independently designed machines can use it without compatibility issues.

Comments

RDF vocabulary

[BobGregg]

If you're looking for a standard "vocabulary" to use in the context of RDF, W3's RDF FAQ has a link to suggestions about how to implement the Dublin Core tags via RDF. For a more specific and extensive vocabulary, you're probably right - there's very little agreement about what sort of standard to use. It's kind of ironic actually; libraries have been using one of two different organizational systems (Dewey or LOC) for roughly a century, either of which seems like it would lend itself handily to indexing the web topically. Yet in the quickest-growing body of knowledge on the planet, nobody wants either of those, and nobody seems to be able to agree on anything new either.

This is where SWAG comes in

[aswartz]

I feel sort of bad plugging my own group, but this is exactly the problem that SWAG is meant to solve. SWAG is the Semantic Web Agreement Group, and we bring different users of the SWeb together to try and build sets of common terms. Our current project is to build a dictionary of common terms, which you can find at: WebNS.net.

Obviously, the Semantic Web won't work if we only have one dictionary, but it will work much better if agree on the terms we use when possible. So SWAG isn't trying to enforce terms, but merely recommend them.

We work on a process of consensus so that we can move quite quickly and new terms don't get bogged down in endless talking.

So I hope you'll visit us, once again the address is: http://purl.org/swag/.

Your little niche

[Dancin_Santa]

There are a zillion different things going on on the web every moment. Even if you were to successfully implement your program, you'd have to get users, most of whom are wholly uninterested in finding web resources, to use the Semantic web system. Essentially, you'd become just another niche in an infinite universe of niches.

At this point in time it would be practically impossible to backtrack to a systematically laid out web. Probably the best you could do is simulate one using a search engine that constantly sought and categorized pages intelligently. Even then, you'd have to convince people to use your search engine, which, unless you really provide a superior one like Google or a deep catalog like Yahoo!, would be pretty hard to do.

Reminds me of a story...

Tim was a software designer, he designed the coolest technology and its use spread to all corners of the world. People used his technology to share ideas and conduct business. With different people pulling his technology in a hundred directions at once, his technology grew and became chaotic and beautiful. Unfortunately, the information was becoming factioned and harder to find for Tim.

To seek a remedy he went to the council of shamans and asked for help. "The solution to your information problem is easy. You only need to apply a systematic storage structure to your technology," said the council chief. The chief waved a bloody chicken over Tim's head and spat on him several times then handed him a goosedown pillow. "Take this pillow to the top of Mt. Shasta. Once there, shake out all the feathers into the wind. Return with your results."

Tim left and did as the shaman said and returned with the empty pillowcase. "I emptied the pillow of feathers, but I still don't understand what this has to do with applying a systematic storage structure to my technology," he said to the shamans.

"Then go back to the top of the mountain and put all the feathers back into the pillowcase."

Dancin Santa

Semantic Web is a layered framework

[Edd_Dumbill]

As the Semantic Web is a layered framework, the actual vocabularies you use to describe things are applications of the framework rather than the framework itself.

One such application that might prove useful in what you're tackling is RSS. What you seem to be looking for is a taxonomy against which you can classify things. These are expensive to develop and hence rare, the ODP being one of the few that are public. My advice is, if the ODP doesn't fit, classify by topic yourself (but avoid the mistake of struggling to produce a hierarchical system, this is rarely appropriate). At a later stage you can express equivalences to other folks' categories. Folks on the RSS-DEV mailing list would be happy to share experience of categorization.

Anyone seeking more information as to what the Semantic Web actually is and how it fits together might be interested in some of the articles I've written on the topic, which give an overview both of the vision and of ways you can get started with tools:

• Building the Semantic Web
• Berners-Lee and the Semantic Web Vision
• The Semantic Web: A Primer

-- Edd Dumbill, Editor, XML.com.