I wonder if there is a relationship between this:
I guess what I'm getting at is that the Semantic Web just doesn't yet seem to me to be sufficiently dirty enough for the grassroots to grow. But I'm still unsure about this assertion.
... and another quote I read in a thread
on the RDF WG's mailing list.
A "simple" competitor to RDF might be a rather straightforward
graph-based language - but explanations of how that should be
used to provide rich consistent semantic structures are almost
certainly not going to be.
... but let's break that down a bit:
rich - This must mean sufficiently expressive to communicate information in the target domain. Hmmm ... but isn't the target domain pretty much anything that can be said on the web ... and that is pretty much anything.
consistent - Ahh , there is the rub. Me thinks that there is no way the target domain is (or can ever be) consistent.
semantic structures - That say that the communications mean the same to all processing agents.
So I think that the RDF WG's current obsession with one universal monotonic logic on the semantic web is contraproductive to a "sufficiently dirty grass roots growth". Oh well ... maybe something better will come along ... maybe something like quads which is just a simple syntax to transmit a graph and allows you to talk about the graphs you transmit and interrelate them to each other and to specify any assumptions that any reasoning agents may want to adopt should it want to draw the same conclusions intended by the author of the graph.
11:03:04 AM 
|
