4 ms·

I have to point out that the author's essay was from 2001. (About 7 months after wikipedia registered its domain name) So on the one hand, the author's insights

by nekopa 16y ago

I have to point out that the author's essay was from 2001. (About 7 months after wikipedia registered its domain name) So on the one hand, the author's insights are a little outdated. On the other hand, sad to say, most of what he points out is almost timeless. People are lazy and liars. Some people (spammers) are industrious and liars. I think his point about 'There's more than one way to describe something' is the real crux of the issue. I call it art, you call it crap, where does it fit into the SW? My opinion is that we are at the beginnings of even trying to figure out what it is we want. Semantic web seems to shine a light on a possible better way, but I think we are just starting out. I think SW will be one part of the internet just like the web is just one part.

david927 16y ago
Sure, you're right. People will always spam and lie, etc, but I don't see that as a blocker for the development of a SW as much as it was a blocker for the web itself. I think there's already so much in terms of the data that's in social sites, dating sites, real estate sites, etc. And it's all fine. There's also a ton in RDF triples already in LinkedData, etc. And that stuff is fine too. I really think it's not as bad as our fears. But I'm noticing I'm not getting much love on this thread. Very interesting. Chris Dixon states in the (OP) video that the Semantic Web has turned into a dirty word. I can see that's true now. Fascinating.