Re: The Object Oriented Web

Thanks all for your comments.

To make a global answer, I would say something very simple that anyone  
should already know: "data are not enough".

I still don't understand the utopia of the "Web of Data" because when  
we say that it seems that processes (or protocols, methods, actions,  
behaviours, functions, API, procedures, whatever you want) doesn't  
exist anymore. What we would do without HTTP, Pingback, REST, OpenID  
or even SPARQL? All that are processes (or protocols if you prefer).  
Do you think that the list should stop there? What about the concept  
of subscription (http://blog.kindalab.com/2007/10/19/backlinks/),  
datahubs (http://blog.kindalab.com/2007/10/24/datahubs/) or  
information spreading (http://blog.kindalab.com/2007/10/26/information-spreading-through-social-networks/ 
), or what can be done with objects. The web is not a collection of  
dead pages (or data), it is quite alive don't you think? The objects  
have the power to give life to data, why not take that into account?

Cheers,

Manuel Vila
http://claimid.com/mvila

Le 6 nov. 07 à 14:24, Renato Golin a écrit :

>
> Manuel Vila wrote:
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would be very happy to get some feedback about the concept of  
>> "Object
>> Oriented Web" as I just outlined here:
>>
>> http://blog.kindalab.com/2007/11/02/the-object-oriented-web/
>>
>> Feel free to send your comments either here or on my blog.
>
> Hi Manuel,
>
> Once I felt very close to what you say in your post, but than reading
> the many high-quality posts in this mailing list I've changed  
> completely
> my opinion about it.
>
> Although Andreas got a bit too deterministic in his reply he shares  
> the
> thoughts of many (not me) and it was by understanding their POV I've
> changed my mind from something surrealistically simplistic as you  
> state
> in your post to something more feasible.
>
> First, I do believe that machines can talk to each other without any
> human interaction and it's not that hard, but won't also be human- 
> like.
> Second, the whole artificial intelligence movement is too focused in
> simulating human behaviour that they forget that a program doesn't  
> need
> to be human to be intelligent. And last, there are some basic things
> like instincts and collective unconscious that can be created new for
> machines and don't have to be copied from our experience. But that's a
> discussion for a completely different mailing list.
>
> The role of RDF in this "revolution" we're all anxiously waiting on AI
> can be more important than we know today and that's the feeling of  
> many
> people I talk to, but still it's a gut-feeling rather than something
> concrete. The concrete about RDF is exactly what Andreas said:  
> organize
> the data so we can retrieve it more efficiently. Learning from that  
> data
> is far from our reach with today's technology and it's maybe not even
> the right time to think about it as it'll put too much expectations on
> the semantic technology that won't necessarily happen soon.
>
> Unfortunately, people with money don't like to wait. We shouldn't tell
> them what they can do next decade as they'll want it for next year.
>
> My 2 pence...
>
> cheers,
> --renato
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2007 18:24:41 UTC