Hi, I have read this article too and enjoyed it too. But I have a more intermediate opinions. Le vendredi, 19 sep 2003, à 12:22 America/Montreal, Dan Connolly a écrit : > "I don't think the Semantic Web will come from a specification that > tells us how to name and categorize everything. But it could arise, I > suspect, from our linguistic instincts and from the social contexts > that > nurture them." Yes and no. I definitely agree that specifications which tend to impose to people a set of requirements without taking into account the nature of needs or the actual usages of people will not succeed. But there's another danger in the lack of a specification, which is a set of vocabulary imposed by the most used or most powerful software on the market. I would prefer definitely to see a specification which is made with the largest possible community: not in numbers of participants, but in terms of type of domains participating. For the categorization of information using CSS, the author has definitely a point and he comes very close of my silly idea of COW (Cascading Ontologies for The Web) where we could map OWL Ontologies in a markup suitable for HTML without breaking any laws of validity, by using class attributes for example. http://www.la-grange.net/web/cow There's just a need of implementation in Weblogs software importing real ontologies and creating a markup inside the HTML with classes. A bit of the ideas exposed here http://radio.weblogs.com/0110772/stories/2003/03/13/ towardsStructuredBlogging.html http://www.la-grange.net/2003/02/17.html.en#web-semantique http://www.boxesandarrows.com/archives/ building_a_metadatabased_website.php -- Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/ W3C Conformance Manager *** Be Strict To Be Cool ***Received on Monday, 22 September 2003 11:25:22 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:42:15 GMT