Except that the "Semantic Web" implies natural language access to the World Wide Web; while Wolfram|Alpha does no such thing. It curates all data from known resources, many of which are decidedly not on the web, and provides a web interface to its computational engine.
>> Besides, all their data comes from somewhere, and I don't see those attributions.
Check out the "Source information" at the bottom of each results page. It'll give you bibliographical information on the data used to process your query; and where that data is available on the Web, it'll by hyperlinked.
Google does not return any of it's own content, but hyperlinks to external sources. They do not claim ownership to those, but they do claim ownership to the content they generate, such as ads and such:
8.1 You understand that all information (such as data files, written text, computer software, music, audio files or other sounds, photographs, videos or other images) which you may have access to as part of, or through your use of, the Services are the sole responsibility of the person from which such content originated. All such information is referred to below as the "Content".
8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (eith
Wolfram|Alpha does more than host third-party content; they compute and correlate this data in order to offer meaningful and useful results. It is not an index.
No, what they mean by that comment on things that didn't exist before you queried is auto-generated stuff like graphs and the results of correlations you requested.
Still, they are only claiming ownership of the representation of these results.
You see, it is convoluted, then they go through a black-hole, end up in an alternate universe, where it is straightforward. Therefore, it is not a contradiction.
What you get from Google is a list of resources of various degrees of accuracy, ranked questionably by relevance. What you get from Wolfram|Alpha is the result of the actual query, compiled from various sources, the list of which is also provided for your reference.
Funny, your's seems to be qualified with "According to the HHGTG...". When I posed the same question in a slightly different way, it just answered "42", which seems to be more authoritative.
Slashdot Mirror
FAIL!
You failed to start your post with a single word sentence.
-dZ.
>> Kind of like how there only needed to be one Highlander movie.
But there was only one. There can be only one.
-dZ.
Graphs, charts, molecular designs, etc.
-dZ.
Except that the "Semantic Web" implies natural language access to the World Wide Web; while Wolfram|Alpha does no such thing. It curates all data from known resources, many of which are decidedly not on the web, and provides a web interface to its computational engine.
-dZ.
>> Besides, all their data comes from somewhere, and I don't see those attributions.
Check out the "Source information" at the bottom of each results page. It'll give you bibliographical information on the data used to process your query; and where that data is available on the Web, it'll by hyperlinked.
-dZ.
Google does not return any of it's own content, but hyperlinks to external sources. They do not claim ownership to those, but they do claim ownership to the content they generate, such as ads and such:
http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS
Wolfram|Alpha does more than host third-party content; they compute and correlate this data in order to offer meaningful and useful results. It is not an index.
-dZ.
No, what they mean by that comment on things that didn't exist before you queried is auto-generated stuff like graphs and the results of correlations you requested.
Still, they are only claiming ownership of the representation of these results.
-dZ.
You (and others) keep comparing it with "traditional search engines"; it is not.
-dZ.
You see, it is convoluted, then they go through a black-hole, end up in an alternate universe, where it is straightforward. Therefore, it is not a contradiction.
-dZ.
Thom, is that you?
-dZ.
What you get from Google is a list of resources of various degrees of accuracy, ranked questionably by relevance. What you get from Wolfram|Alpha is the result of the actual query, compiled from various sources, the list of which is also provided for your reference.
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=population+of+Austin+Texas+versus+population+of+Dallas+Texas
Wolfram|Alpha is definitely not Google, but that is arguably its strong point.
-dZ.
wtf? I must be really dense, for I still do not get the "handbag" reference.
-dZ.
You do know that if they bring multiple sets of fatigues, they're just dress-up dolls, right?
Heh.
-dZ.
And accurate:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Is+Wolfram+Alpha+sure+about+what+to+do+with+my+input%3F
-dZ.
So that's a net ±0 wtf?.
Maybe if you spelled "versus" correctly. I'm not sure it has much poetic inclinations.
-dZ.
Ah! So it was you who broke it. Nice. Real nice.
-dZ.
Funny, your's seems to be qualified with "According to the HHGTG...". When I posed the same question in a slightly different way, it just answered "42", which seems to be more authoritative.
"What is the answer to the ultimate question to life, the universe, and everything?"
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+answer+to+the+ultimate+question+to+life%2C+the+universe+and+everything%3F
-dZ.
Then you should try asking more "difficult" questions:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+answer+to+the+ultimate+question+to+life%2C+the+universe+and+everything%3F
-dZ.
Yeah, it seems to work OK:
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=what+is+the+answer+to+the+ultimate+question+to+life%2C+the+universe+and+everything%3F
-dZ.
Do you also play with dolls now? I'm just asking.
-dZ.
Interesting responses; I should try these, thanks!
"Do these shoes work with this dress?"
"Yes, but ask for more money."
"Should I take this job?"
"No, you need to buy a new pair"
"Do you think I should marry her?"
"Maybe, what other shoes do you have?"
But SurroundTypes are not supported by most systems.
>> Okay, I'm obviously missing something here. How is having an extra parameter for the destination size any safer?
That extra parameter represents the "are you really sure?" confirmation from the developer.
-dZ.
Bravo! If I had mod points I'd give you some.
-dZ.