- From: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 16:47:10 +0100
- To: Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@ontopia.net>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
At 15:51 16/08/04 +0200, Lars Marius Garshol wrote: >| I would say that topic maps can be used as part of Semantic Web >| technology, and that they are reasonably well suited for the >| purpose. I would also say that I haven't seen people actually >| *using* them that way so far. > >That all sounds fair to be, but then what would using anything "as >part of Semantic Web technology" actually mean? And who does that in >practice? (And, yes, these are real questions. Just trying to get more >of a grip on what "semantic web technology" means.) A good question, which I won't attempt to answer directly. Rather, this exchange reminds me that I think those of us working with Semantic Web technologies (whether they may be ;-) maybe tend to regard them as the centre of a universe around which many other things should revolve. Thinking about discussions with potential commercial users, and others, I come to a view that we maybe need to turn the question around a little and ask what applications can benefit from being combined with (some aspects of) Semantic Web technologies? Or, in this case, in what way can Semantic Web technologies be of benefit to applications that use or are based on topic maps. Ultimately, I think that the answers to questions like this will come to define what we mean by "Semantic Web technologies". #g ------------ Graham Klyne For email: http://www.ninebynine.org/#Contact
Received on Tuesday, 17 August 2004 07:46:10 UTC