Re: Do we need another list(s)? Was "other things"

i agree on all your comments and believe me by talking to actual web
2.0 people you're way ahead.
i'll try to answer some of your questions

> I then asked if they new the value of Linked Data. The answer I got was
> "well, i would think that my site would be easier to find right? i mean, i
> would link stuff on my site better"

lets see the key point here:

* There is a site
* There are human visitors as HUMANS Bring money/business not machines
* There is a perception that metadata can help to find things better.

>
> Question 2: Would my site be easier to find then using Linked Data?

Answer: no, matter of fact you open your data to being used without
getting any visitors.

>
> Question 3: So are microformats in my pages doing Linked Data?

they are not doing "linked data" but in practice the do answer the
questions above or practically go well in that direction. see next one

>
> Question 4: By what method are these things linked?
>


2 pages have the same vcards = you can link them. They have a me link
= they are linked they have 2 events on the same date, same city =
they should be grouped they might be interesting to show together to
the user.

They are in practice linked by simple, practical use cases which
involve finding/related pages (real sites which want to get traffic)
for users (real people who want to get pages)


> After explaining somebody what linked data was, and giving them the existing
> links about it, question 5 came up:
> Question 5: "I see value in the data and the data being linked together but
> i don't see practically how i would use it"

big technical barrier in using it with the Lod model.

on the other hand querying Freebase is infinitely simpler solving :

* the access problem . a single language accesses all the datasets
they have integrated, no hopping around, very fast
* the data omogeneity and quality problem, they care about the dataset
and import only clean stuff
* identifiers omogeneity, big efforts are made to smush things together
* Ontology issues: both a clear taxonomy is defined AND all the
sources that are integrated are harmonized to it.
* the multiple points of failure problem

So since i believe querying large datasets of structured, matched data
is in fact very useful once one gets a slightely bit creative i think
they'll have success. Could i buy some of their shares i would do it
:).

I dont think its a coincidence that some of the smartest people who
worked on semantic web now work for them.  (but of course there is
much more than a good idea for a successful business so they might go
bust anyway obviously)

>
> A final quote "people like me don't a) know about this and b) don't
> understand how to use it once they do? I would say some additional education
> is necessary to make this understood... i would also say that in a broader
> sense the semantic web message has gotten lost under a mass of acryonyms and
> theory"

for a more articulate attept at an explanation of what happened i
agree a lot with this post
 http://inamidst.com/whits/2008/technobunkum by Sean Palmer

I dont think "more education" is needed Juan, one really should teach
something if .. the answer is known else its called brainstorming or
handwaving (according to weather you're in  good faith or not)

note that this is all but a bashing on the power of handling loosely
structured data and RDF. I think on the other hand RDFa will triumph
and so people will be probably making their own little vucabolaries..
but starting from the web 2.0 approach and practical "how do i bring
visitors, how to do simple site to site integration" use cases.

Giovanni

Received on Saturday, 6 December 2008 00:02:09 UTC