- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@acm.org>
- Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 16:32:52 -0500
- To: Chris Bizer <bizer@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
Chris Bizer wrote: > Hi Frank, > > >>b. No point in being critical. Google already *had* a central Web >>data repository. All they're doing is adding structured data to it, and >>doing it in a "distributed" way (by asking everyone to contribute to >>it). This seems a reasonable variant of the basic SW idea. The fact >>that it is centrally *stored* should be just a technicality, provided >>the data is freely accessible. > > > Yes. I think free access to the data is the central point. When I read the > press about Google Base threatening eBay and other market places or when I > read stuff like Tim O'Reilly's "Data is the Next Intel Inside" > (http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20. > html?page=3) I'm wondering if Google's business model can be to give > everybody free access to the data? Up till now, they only provide an HTML > interface but no API. Anybody a clue if they are going to change this? > I doubt it and that is the problem. Actually, when I said "freely accessible", I had more in mind "I can get to it if I want it", rather than "free" as in "no cost". Mind you, I'd *like* access to be no cost (!), but there is material on the Web that I want enough to pay to access now (like ACM's Digital Library), and I don't think requiring payment for access necessarily disqualifies something as being "Semantic Web". The economics will have to work itself out in practice just like the technical aspects will. --Frank
Received on Monday, 5 December 2005 21:32:08 UTC