What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
18 Comments
- pdj007, on 10/19/2007, -0/+6What interest does the Robotech Defense Force have in fighting microformats?
- vwvan, on 10/20/2007, -0/+5When you say swoogle, you should be specific.
swoogle.com is much different than swoogle.umbc.edu
I found it difficult to focus on ontology while looking at swoogle.com. - Phocion55, on 10/18/2007, -0/+5Nice blog you have going there. Semantic web is quickly becoming one of my biggest interests as well. I'll be sure to check your site out from time to time. Here's my thoughts (disclaimer: still kind of new in this field, so if I say something stupid please correct me).
As much as I like the RDF approach, there's still some huge gaps that need to be filled before it can truly take off.
First - laziness. People don't like doing extra things. Currently, there's little incentive for people to tag up online content with semantic metadata.
Second - there's no centralized approach. This may sound stupid at first since this framework was meant to function in a completely decentralized environment, but think about it.
If I go to Swoogle looking for a specific ontology, about wine for example, I'm presented with thousands of results...90% of which seem like junk to me. I want one definitive ontology for wine. I just took a step backwards - I'm currently sifting through endless search engine results like the good old days - something that semantic web attempts to "cure".
Or say I'm interested in leveraging the information found in a Sesame repository. How do I go about finding a suitable repository about wine? How can I be sure it's accurate and up to date? Again, I have to sift through Google to find them.
Wouldn't it be much easier if there was one central location to find these ontologies and repositories? So in this way, centralizing some aspects of the semantic web might be needed. - joakim, on 10/22/2007, -1/+5RDF will always be "Reality Destortion Field" in my head.
- Phocion55, on 10/19/2007, -0/+2And in your attempts to be a complete jackass, you've actually made a good point.
End users don't have to care about "semantic web". It's completely seamless and behind the scenes. Your favorite application could be using RDF and you'd never even know it. - cmw72, on 10/18/2007, -0/+2Perhaps they mean Micronized Zentraedi?
(bleh ... meant to reply to pdj007) - karipatila, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1RDF is really difficult for most of us. While it's a great idea, it'll be no more than that if we decide that we don't want complexity.
- imnojezus, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1Agreed. When I read the headline I thought this was going to be about Microsoft apologists going head to head with Mac drones. (Disclaimer: I'm a member of the latter)
- Phocion55, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1HAHAHAHA. Sorry about that. I made the same mistake at work with some colleagues standing around me.
oops. - angusm, on 10/18/2007, -0/+1The response from Joe Squio (linked at the top of the guy's blog) basically says what needs to be said here: microformats aren't intended to replace RDF. They're complementary, not alternatives. Whether or not microformats are part of the semantic web is a different issue: microformats are expressing semantic information in an easy-to-author fashion; once that information is out there, it's available to be part of the semantic web whether the purists care for it or not.
- bsmedberg, on 10/18/2007, -1/+1I think most people agree that RDF and microformats don't solve the same problems. The major disagreement is whether the "sematic web" is worthwhile or feasible. The "infinitely extensible" RDF is also infinitely complicated. Microformats solve targeted real-world people problems... RDF attempts to solve all problems and fails miserably precisely because of it.
- kontsevoi, on 01/25/2008, -0/+0So what is the main advantage of RDF over microformats for the end-users?
- dhenderson, on 10/19/2007, -1/+1yay - more new buzz words to describe old techniques. Smells like web 2.0.
- RezaR, on 10/28/2007, -0/+0What happen with OWL ???
- ajforgue, on 10/19/2007, -3/+2The thing that most people don't realize is... nobody really cares about this 'semantic' web. Sorry, someone had to say it.
- sanman, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Robotech Defense Forces FTW!
- foljs, on 10/19/2007, -2/+1Amen brother! Amen!
- sanman, on 10/18/2007, -2/+1Robotech Defense Forces FTW!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is