Re: The Object Oriented Web

Metaphors are constructs with a certain meaning. Meaning that is given 
by language structure and semantics. So...are we not talking about the 
same? I would rather see more technical details on your point of view 
than metaphors of course, and maybe thatīs what I would like to see 
further developed. Your concept of "object-oriented-web" is interesting, 
though lacking these elements I can hardly think outside metaphors.

Then...just as a friendly note: given a certain audience, if itīs 
majority understands a certain concept in a certain way then probably 
the concept needs to be explained in a different way (maybe addressing 
it differently). I wouldnīt say "everyone" though...

Alejandro

Ps: your English is flawless, though touched with a certain Irony I 
myself enjoyed :-)

Manuel Vila wrote:
>
> For the love of god, why everyone are so missing the point? Is my 
> writing so bad (don't hesitate to tell me, I'm French and I know that 
> my English writing is terrible)? Who is speaking about Artificial 
> Intelligence there? Not me, it's not my project at all, far from 
> there. When I claim that computers would be able to "talk" to each 
> others, of course it's not about a normal conversation as humans can 
> do it. Computers will still speak only about what they know, about 
> what they were programmed for. So please, forget this small metaphoric 
> part of my text and try to go forward. :)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Manuel Vila
> http://claimid.com/mvila
>
> Le 6 nov. 07 ā 21:26, Alejandro Cabral a écrit :
>
>> I agree with your analysis Renato, though I am as excited as Manuel 
>> is about thinking the web in ways we havenīt done so before. The best 
>> conclusion I can offer is that while most humans are not really 
>> concious of the rules of their learnt languages, but barely aware of 
>> it (instinct helps there), machines still need to know these rules 
>> from a to z to be able to work / communicate with other machines.
>>
>> We still have a long way to go to get to that place where 
>> "Omnius"(Herbert's Dune Prequel Series) is possible.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
>> Alejandro Cabral| Channel Campaign Manager| 54.11.4339.6376 - 
>> 54.9.11.5579.6376
>> Oracle Direct LAD
>> Av. Ing. Huergo 1167 | Cap. Fed., C1107AOL | Buenos Aires, Argentina
>>
>>
>> Renato Golin wrote:
>>>
>>> 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 Wednesday, 7 November 2007 14:15:41 UTC