- From: Jeff Bone <jbone@deepfile.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 16:23:06 -0600
- To: Paul Prescod <paul@prescod.net>
- Cc: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>, www-tag@w3.org
Almost totally agreed w/ Paul on this, but two minor nits --- tangential but food for thought. On Monday, Feb 3, 2003, at 15:55 US/Central, Paul Prescod wrote: > Those billions of pages are not semantic-web processable or we > wouldn't be arguing about how to build the semantic web. They are the > things talked ABOUT by the semantic web, not the nodes in the web. > Because the are 100% semantically ambiguous I would say that they are > totally valueless as part of the web. Paul, you might be overstating the case just a bit. If *could be* that services e.g. Google could perform a useful function in mining and making (minimal) semantic information about the existing (non-semantic) Web available in a machine-usable fashion. I.e., to some extent your comment about the existing Web being the subject of the semantic Web belies your comments about the value of the existing Web. > Plus, not that URIs are not expensive. They are cheap. Making new > ones is easy. We need to make new ones to have a home for the RDF data > anyhow. So what. I wonder about this. Google knows about ~ 3B "pages." I wonder what the amortized mean economic cost- and / or value-per-page for all of those is, how much money (time, etc.) was sunk in creating them and the software and hardware infrastructures that manage / host them... At least one of those quantities (cost) is probably higher than we might at first imagine. jb
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 17:25:47 UTC