4 ms·

Tiny niches? All the data tables in Wikipedia; Apple acquires Siri; Google acquires Freebase; the Google and Bing search indexes, .... This story is not over.

by irickt 15y ago

Tiny niches? All the data tables in Wikipedia; Apple acquires Siri; Google acquires Freebase; the Google and Bing search indexes, .... This story is not over. Bitter, absolute statements like that are regurgitations of a myth. (And maybe you mean SPARQL not XQuery.)

batista 15y ago
Tiny niches? All the data tables in Wikipedia; Apple acquires Siri; Google acquires Freebase; the Google and Bing search indexes, .... This story is not over. What those have to do with it? I mean, I don't know about the data tables in Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure neither Siri, nor Google / Bing etc use RDF for their metadata and search indexes. It's been 15+ years now, the Semantic Web didn't caught on, and it has been shown to be misguided in the general scheme of things (could work for some specialized cases, where you control all the data, but even then, neither the tools nor the performance and market readiness are there). Being able to cater for semantics != using RDF and TBL's "semantic web" notions. And, yes, I mean SPARQL. Was working with a team back at uni that integrated XQuery with RDF/SPARQL and have them a little confused in my mind.
jerf 15y ago
"This story is not over." Which is to say, the Semantic Web didn't happen as promised, and it didn't happen in exactly the way you would guess based on my message, which is that where you had something that could create a local context it could happen in pieces, but no global whole has emerged, nor is there any particular evidence one is emerging. http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/bibliographic-data-part-1-marc-and-its-vile-progeny-2/ http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/bibliographic-data-pa... - read parts 2 and 3 as well. It may not seem directly related at first, but you should soon figure out why I consider this three-part blog series to be the thing that proves global semantic contexts are a hopeless pipe dream. (And remember that entire bit is about librarians; if they are that hopeless nobody else has a chance.)

by irickt 15y ago

batista 15y ago

Tiny niches? All the data tables in Wikipedia; Apple acquires Siri; Google acquires Freebase; the Google and Bing search indexes, .... This story is not over. What those have to do with it? I mean, I don't know about the data tables in Wikipedia, but I'm pretty sure neither Siri, nor Google / Bing etc use RDF for their metadata and search indexes. It's been 15+ years now, the Semantic Web didn't caught on, and it has been shown to be misguided in the general scheme of things (could work for some specialized cases, where you control all the data, but even then, neither the tools nor the performance and market readiness are there). Being able to cater for semantics != using RDF and TBL's "semantic web" notions. And, yes, I mean SPARQL. Was working with a team back at uni that integrated XQuery with RDF/SPARQL and have them a little confused in my mind.

jerf 15y ago

"This story is not over." Which is to say, the Semantic Web didn't happen as promised, and it didn't happen in exactly the way you would guess based on my message, which is that where you had something that could create a local context it could happen in pieces, but no global whole has emerged, nor is there any particular evidence one is emerging. http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/bibliographic-data-part-1-marc-and-its-vile-progeny-2/ http://reprog.wordpress.com/2010/09/02/bibliographic-data-pa... - read parts 2 and 3 as well. It may not seem directly related at first, but you should soon figure out why I consider this three-part blog series to be the thing that proves global semantic contexts are a hopeless pipe dream. (And remember that entire bit is about librarians; if they are that hopeless nobody else has a chance.)