RDF is two different things. 1st, and most important, it's a data model. 2nd, it is an XML specification.
Their patent claim is on the data model part. After reading the patent, I have to agree that they have stated the basics of the RDF data model. See my comments in elsewhere in this discussion.
Since, I have done a lot of work with RDF, this article has really tripped my trigger. After pondering this, I am now agreeing that they do have a patent on the fundamental ideas of RDF. See my post here.
Here is a document from October 1999 announcing the enforcement of the patent. Seems that they started this process a long time ago. Considering that the RDF specification reached recommendation in February 1999, it seems they noticed.
I really hope that they receive something out of this (at least some recognition), but charging royalties on RDF at this point is impossible. RDF is a great web technology that is going to be put to free use for possibly decades. They snoozed, they losed.
After reading another post that had a good quote from the patent, I have changed my mind... I think they do have the basic idea of what RDF is written down here. Howevever, I don't think they should get any royalties.
---
generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers
In RDF, a relationship between two objects would be a URI (typically represented in URL format). The two objects are called Resources. This is the "bond identifier" they speak of.
A Resource identifier is the "subject identifier" they speak of. These would contain some fields, "attribute identifiers" with references to other resources, a collection of elements, or a literal that contains actual data.
After recognizing all of this, there is this: "wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers". This is exactly what an RDF triple is, and is basically the building block of the RDF model specification.
So, I do agree with their claim that this is RDF, but I really don't think they should get any royalties from it. If they were that concerned, how could they let the RDF specification reach recommendation in 1999, and just now in 2002 finally say something?
Well, after reading this comment, and really looking at what they wrote, I am beginning to agree with their claim somewhat that what their patent is actually RDF...
In RDF, the relationship would be a URI (typically represented in URL format). The two objects are called Resources. This is the "bond identifier" they speak of.
A Resource "subject identifier" can be an object that contains some fields, "attribute identifiers" with references to other resources, a collection of elements, or a literal that contains actual data.
I skimmed the patent, and I can't understand why they are even bothering. The RDF model (ignoring the syntax) is just that, a graphical model. Now, if I could see some diagrams of their idea in the patent, then maybe I could give them some credibility. However, all I see is Figure references without the figures! That really sucks.
There doesn't even seem to be any mention of something like a 'triple', one of the foundations of the RDF model. All I see here is mentions of information be both static and dynamic. Umm, sorry but this is very general.
When I look at pictures of my grandparents as they were my age, I have to wonder what they were like in person. What if I could meet them today, with them looking like that instead of some old people?
I believe that eventually the aging process will be conquered, only to have more complex problems eventually cause our deaths (such as cancer).
Imagine living to 100, but had stopped aging at 30. That would be so incredible, and would make a lifetime much more enjoyable overall. Yet, there is probably no way we could live forever, because something would eventually kill us. Heart failure or cancer would be the most likely candidates, because those are pretty much inevitable.
Right now, I would give up everything I have to stop aging. At 22, I fear getting old...
Be, Inc just got bought by Palm, Inc. BeOS was a great software product, and now probably has no use to Palm anyway. People are petitioning for its source code to be released.
The problem with this is licensing conflicts. I'm sure it would take a lot of work to just strip out the code that can be released without being sued. Plus go through all the mundane release procedures, prepare announcements, package the code, etc. I know Palm doesn't want to invest man-hours into that, for basically no reason but a small group of peoples' affection.
I think the MSN and Yahoo transports on the Jabber.org server has been working reliably for some time.
For ICQ and AIM, you can probably find some lesser-used Jabber servers with the transports active, and not blocked. JabberView.com has a small list of other servers.
Me, I just use my Jabber.org account, but cross-link to transports on other servers that actually work.
Of course, you can run your own server and transports. Heck, you could even do it on your own box if you want to. Just run icq.localhost and aim.localhost along with jabberd localhost, but still use your user@jabber.org or whatever as your main Jabber account. It's easy to do.
Hey, if you guys want open-source IM, check out http://www.jabber.org The server is open-source and it's a distributed XML-based network. Lots of different, cool clients too. JabberIM for Windows, and Gabber for Linux are the most mature ones though. There are bridges to the AIM and ICQ networks available on some servers, but the ones on Jabber.org have been blocked by AOL... nice huh?
First of all, I want to state that I think Linux will continue its growth in the server market. With IBM and other major companies now pushing it in their products, there is no going back on its growth. Linux is here to stay in the business world for many years to come.
As for Linux on the desktop, I have to remain skeptical of its success. If MacOS X never came about, I'd say their are definite possibilities, but now there is just too much going on besides Linux. Here are reasons why Linux is not going to succeed on the desktop anytime soon:
Software companies are currently devoting a good chunk of resources towards updating their applications for XP, and also exploring possibilities of using new XP "features".
.NET will also consume more software company resources that could possibly be focused towards Linux desktop software.
Apple is going to be releasing faster, more appealing hardware along with an improving OS X. Software companies are going to get distracted into doing new Mac versions of their applications.
A high-end multimedia explosion is about to hit the computer industry. Over the past several years, multimedia has been a joke in my opinion, but now hardware and software is actually capable of doing some useful and cool stuff. When I read about wireless IEEE-1284 (Firewire), see new media features come out like DVD-RW+, and video software that does a million things in a simple package, I don't even begin to think about Linux. Sorry.
If Linux was where it is now, two years ago, I'd say it had a good chance. Now the future is looking even more bleak. I don't like saying that, but it's the current reality. A bronze medal is still not that bad though, when you think about it...
If people just want to install a web server, and not muck around with a million details of Linux to make is really secure, my advice would be to not use Linux.
OpenBSD has been secure for "Four years without a remote hole in the default install". They look over just about every line of code every release for possible security problems, and also regularly screen their ports collection for possible problems. FreeBSD has a secure mode option in the installer that apparently makes it about as good as OpenBSD, but I have to doubt that somewhat.
Is there a way to make a default Linux distro as secure as OpenBSD (and have long-term proof of it)? Probably not. So, if you want a secure web server as soon as the installation is finished... go with OpenBSD. It runs just as well as Linux, and has the same capabilities, so why not?
This reminds me of stories about how humaniarian efforts have sent a bunch of rice to starving people. Yet, there is only a little bit of dirty, contaminated water to cook it in, and doesn't provide the nutrients needed.
Sounds to me like Microsoft might as well send these computers to starving people as well:-(
Hasn't it been obvious? Open-source developers are Marxists, working towards a common good, trying to move software development along to benefit everyone.
If Carl Marx were alive today, he would probably be astounded. His ideas have lead to failed societies, and much suffering. Yet his ideas prevail among a group of geeks working in capitalists societies, collaborating all over the world.
I think that it's only possible to be a partial Marxist. I develop open-source software because other people are developing software that I use for free. They use mine for free in return. However every other aspect of my life is capitalist, and I am cool with that.
One thing that will be interesting is to see how open-source affects the software industry over the long term. States are proposing that Microsoft spill out the source code for some of their products, and also Micrsoft has the lame shared source thing going on. These are baby steps towards a big revolution, IMHO.
AT&T Broadband has been building their own high-speed cable Internet service and has been communicating contingency plans to move customers to that service. This information was intended for AT&T@Home customers in communities that are served by AT&T Broadband.
Looks like people under the AT&T umbrella may only be offline for a short while at the worst...
I aquired the developmental version of BeOS used for building BeIA software. This is the version of BeOS that was supposed to be 6.0.
After trying it, I have to say that I was NOT impressed. Sure, it had a new networking module, and other things, but existing apps that use the networking wouldn't run. Hell, even the version of NetPositive that came with it didn't work.
There was an optional new theme and some new widget designs. They are very ugly, in my opinion.
OpenGL acceleration didn't seem to be included in the package I had.
However, this WHOLE thing was in a zip file of only 55 MEGS. There was nothing left out, except for som demos, etc.
So anyway, I deleted that partition, and put 5.0 back on. At least it works...
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.udtl.com
Their server seems down though. Impressive company.
RDF is two different things. 1st, and most important, it's a data model. 2nd, it is an XML specification.
Their patent claim is on the data model part. After reading the patent, I have to agree that they have stated the basics of the RDF data model. See my comments in elsewhere in this discussion.
Since, I have done a lot of work with RDF, this article has really tripped my trigger. After pondering this, I am now agreeing that they do have a patent on the fundamental ideas of RDF. See my post here.
Here is a document from October 1999 announcing the enforcement of the patent. Seems that they started this process a long time ago. Considering that the RDF specification reached recommendation in February 1999, it seems they noticed.
I really hope that they receive something out of this (at least some recognition), but charging royalties on RDF at this point is impossible. RDF is a great web technology that is going to be put to free use for possibly decades. They snoozed, they losed.
After reading another post that had a good quote from the patent, I have changed my mind... I think they do have the basic idea of what RDF is written down here. Howevever, I don't think they should get any royalties.
---
generating an information structure and relationship in the memory of the computer as one or more Endo-Dynamic Sets (EDS), the EDS comprising a list of one or more Endo-Dynamic Information Nodes (EDINs), the EDINs each representing an atomic component of data, and the EDINs each comprising a subject identifier, an attribute identifier, and a bond identifier, wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers
In RDF, a relationship between two objects would be a URI (typically represented in URL format). The two objects are called Resources. This is the "bond identifier" they speak of.
A Resource identifier is the "subject identifier" they speak of. These would contain some fields, "attribute identifiers" with references to other resources, a collection of elements, or a literal that contains actual data.
After recognizing all of this, there is this: "wherein the bond identifier defines a relationship between the subject and attribute identifiers". This is exactly what an RDF triple is, and is basically the building block of the RDF model specification.
So, I do agree with their claim that this is RDF, but I really don't think they should get any royalties from it. If they were that concerned, how could they let the RDF specification reach recommendation in 1999, and just now in 2002 finally say something?
Well, after reading this comment, and really looking at what they wrote, I am beginning to agree with their claim somewhat that what their patent is actually RDF...
In RDF, the relationship would be a URI (typically represented in URL format). The two objects are called Resources. This is the "bond identifier" they speak of.
A Resource "subject identifier" can be an object that contains some fields, "attribute identifiers" with references to other resources, a collection of elements, or a literal that contains actual data.
Well, I suppose that *MAYBE* this could be interpreted as an RDF triple.
bond identifier == URI
endo-dynamic information node == a Resource
I skimmed the patent, and I can't understand why they are even bothering. The RDF model (ignoring the syntax) is just that, a graphical model. Now, if I could see some diagrams of their idea in the patent, then maybe I could give them some credibility. However, all I see is Figure references without the figures! That really sucks.
There doesn't even seem to be any mention of something like a 'triple', one of the foundations of the RDF model. All I see here is mentions of information be both static and dynamic. Umm, sorry but this is very general.
When I look at pictures of my grandparents as they were my age, I have to wonder what they were like in person. What if I could meet them today, with them looking like that instead of some old people?
I believe that eventually the aging process will be conquered, only to have more complex problems eventually cause our deaths (such as cancer).
Imagine living to 100, but had stopped aging at 30. That would be so incredible, and would make a lifetime much more enjoyable overall. Yet, there is probably no way we could live forever, because something would eventually kill us. Heart failure or cancer would be the most likely candidates, because those are pretty much inevitable.
Right now, I would give up everything I have to stop aging. At 22, I fear getting old...
Be, Inc just got bought by Palm, Inc. BeOS was a great software product, and now probably has no use to Palm anyway. People are petitioning for its source code to be released.
The problem with this is licensing conflicts. I'm sure it would take a lot of work to just strip out the code that can be released without being sued. Plus go through all the mundane release procedures, prepare announcements, package the code, etc. I know Palm doesn't want to invest man-hours into that, for basically no reason but a small group of peoples' affection.
Too bad things have to be so difficult...
I think the MSN and Yahoo transports on the Jabber.org server has been working reliably for some time.
For ICQ and AIM, you can probably find some lesser-used Jabber servers with the transports active, and not blocked. JabberView.com has a small list of other servers.
Me, I just use my Jabber.org account, but cross-link to transports on other servers that actually work.
Of course, you can run your own server and transports. Heck, you could even do it on your own box if you want to. Just run icq.localhost and aim.localhost along with jabberd localhost, but still use your user@jabber.org or whatever as your main Jabber account. It's easy to do.
http://www.w00w00.org/advisories/aim.html is a better link.
Hey, if you guys want open-source IM, check out http://www.jabber.org The server is open-source and it's a distributed XML-based network. Lots of different, cool clients too. JabberIM for Windows, and Gabber for Linux are the most mature ones though. There are bridges to the AIM and ICQ networks available on some servers, but the ones on Jabber.org have been blocked by AOL... nice huh?
OK, I see your point now. Sure, anything is possible... but what is more possible?
;-)
Maybe you use hee-haw recognition?...
Umm, maybe because they want to get the web browser part finished before moving on to other things...
Moz's capabilites will grow as needed. I don't think anyone will ever want to watch DVDs or whatever in their web browser, dumb ass.
As for Linux on the desktop, I have to remain skeptical of its success. If MacOS X never came about, I'd say their are definite possibilities, but now there is just too much going on besides Linux. Here are reasons why Linux is not going to succeed on the desktop anytime soon:
- Software companies are currently devoting a good chunk of resources towards updating their applications for XP, and also exploring possibilities of using new XP "features".
- .NET will also consume more software company resources that could possibly be focused towards Linux desktop software.
- Apple is going to be releasing faster, more appealing hardware along with an improving OS X. Software companies are going to get distracted into doing new Mac versions of their applications.
- A high-end multimedia explosion is about to hit the computer industry. Over the past several years, multimedia has been a joke in my opinion, but now hardware and software is actually capable of doing some useful and cool stuff. When I read about wireless IEEE-1284 (Firewire), see new media features come out like DVD-RW+, and video software that does a million things in a simple package, I don't even begin to think about Linux. Sorry.
If Linux was where it is now, two years ago, I'd say it had a good chance. Now the future is looking even more bleak. I don't like saying that, but it's the current reality. A bronze medal is still not that bad though, when you think about it...If people just want to install a web server, and not muck around with a million details of Linux to make is really secure, my advice would be to not use Linux.
OpenBSD has been secure for "Four years without a remote hole in the default install". They look over just about every line of code every release for possible security problems, and also regularly screen their ports collection for possible problems. FreeBSD has a secure mode option in the installer that apparently makes it about as good as OpenBSD, but I have to doubt that somewhat.
Is there a way to make a default Linux distro as secure as OpenBSD (and have long-term proof of it)? Probably not. So, if you want a secure web server as soon as the installation is finished... go with OpenBSD. It runs just as well as Linux, and has the same capabilities, so why not?
This reminds me of stories about how humaniarian efforts have sent a bunch of rice to starving people. Yet, there is only a little bit of dirty, contaminated water to cook it in, and doesn't provide the nutrients needed.
:-(
Sounds to me like Microsoft might as well send these computers to starving people as well
Hasn't it been obvious? Open-source developers are Marxists, working towards a common good, trying to move software development along to benefit everyone.
If Carl Marx were alive today, he would probably be astounded. His ideas have lead to failed societies, and much suffering. Yet his ideas prevail among a group of geeks working in capitalists societies, collaborating all over the world.
I think that it's only possible to be a partial Marxist. I develop open-source software because other people are developing software that I use for free. They use mine for free in return. However every other aspect of my life is capitalist, and I am cool with that.
One thing that will be interesting is to see how open-source affects the software industry over the long term. States are proposing that Microsoft spill out the source code for some of their products, and also Micrsoft has the lame shared source thing going on. These are baby steps towards a big revolution, IMHO.
that a Barbara Walters interview with Christopher Reeves will be coming up soon.
Where in Iowa are you? I am in Waterloo, also under MediaCom
I'm here in Iowa (under AT&T @Home), and my DNS has been down all day. It came back up an hour ago.
:-(
My mail server reports that my account doesn't exist
Overall, I am impressed how AT&T has moved all its customers off Excite and onto their own network... I dunno how they did it.
Only if we can get some non-retarded managers for it...
I got this from MediaCom (AT&T partner) e-mail.
AT&T Broadband has been building their own high-speed cable Internet service and has been communicating contingency plans to move customers to that service. This information was intended for AT&T@Home customers in communities that are served by AT&T Broadband.
Looks like people under the AT&T umbrella may only be offline for a short while at the worst...
Does it have sounds?
Does it have all the levels?
Thanks.
I aquired the developmental version of BeOS used for building BeIA software. This is the version of BeOS that was supposed to be 6.0.
After trying it, I have to say that I was NOT impressed. Sure, it had a new networking module, and other things, but existing apps that use the networking wouldn't run. Hell, even the version of NetPositive that came with it didn't work.
There was an optional new theme and some new widget designs. They are very ugly, in my opinion.
OpenGL acceleration didn't seem to be included in the package I had.
However, this WHOLE thing was in a zip file of only 55 MEGS. There was nothing left out, except for som demos, etc.
So anyway, I deleted that partition, and put 5.0 back on. At least it works...
Reminds me of Microsoft's slogan for Windows 2000:
"Built on NT Technology"