W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > August 2000

Re: SV: SV: Instant RDF - Panopolies

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2000 11:05:00 -0700
Message-ID: <39AAA9CC.5111A18C@robustai.net>
CC: rdf <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Greg FitzPatrick wrote:

> Back to square one.  We still have to "sell" the technology - if only within
> the panopoly.  Survival-by-committee.

I agree we need to sell RDF to the panopoly, to the tool makers, to the pioneers
of the Semantic Web.  But if it remains only a toy for this geekish clan, then,
imho, it is still-born.  User friendly killer applications are what's going to
make this useful and should provide the context for us geeks to make our
decisions.  If we make decisions based on the assumption that people are going
to write RDF, we are signing its death warrant.

Here is an example of a application for RDF that would help weave the semantic
web:   A java script fired by a button that anyone could put on a web page.  The
button reads the RDF description (or metadata description) on the page and shows
it in a user friendly format in a new browser window.  Meanwhile the script
transmits the RDF description to a centralized search engine.  The centralized
search engine (amoung a host of other things) could provide user friendly
templates via web forms to create the RDF for the page authors.  Everybody
should use the same graphic button to advertise the concept.  This is similar to
the view/Page-info of the browsers but far more detailed.   I've always wondered
what would motivate a geek to include a RDF description of their page when
nobody can see it except other geeks and most search engines are not interested
in it.

--
Seth Russell
http://RobustAI.net/MyNetwork/index.html
http://robustAI.net/MyNetwork/StickeyCyberMolecules.html
Http://RobustAi.net/Ai/Conjecture.htm
Received on Monday, 28 August 2000 14:00:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:44 GMT