Re: How will the semantic web emerge

Hi,

Well - are you sure we need to stop people from creating ontologies?  As long 
as a few "proper" ones are defined - and in fact doesn't need to be proper, 
there can be multiple ontologies with different types of control, the best 
ones will become most popular - then let people make their own and declare 
parts of theirs synonymous with the proper ones.

Language is very powerful because you put a short word onto a complex concept.

Ontologies are good ways of precisely defining complex concepts.  

Add ability to let people name exact concepts with short names, or connect 
with folksonomies, and you allow 'mom and pop' to have access to power of 
semantic web.

Ok, I guess I said this before and I'll stop beating the horse.  But I really  
think that mappings between different ontologies and folksonomies are the key 
to making the semantic web usable by different groups of people.  

--Golda

On Friday 16 December 2005 09:03, Asankhaya Sharma wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree that foster hierarchical attitudes ...and even
> if we want to use some ontologies that are  "proper"
> who will decide whats proper and how can be stop
> people from creating their own "proper" ontologies..
> there must be de facto standards of classifing
> information or else the very cause of classification
> is useless. 
> 
> Regards,
> Asankhaya Sharma
> http://asankhaya.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> --- William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net> wrote:
> 
> > Asankhaya Sharma wrote:
> > > HI,
> > > 
> > > I am sorry but i dont understand the irony of
> > "good"
> > > and "dead"..
> > > can you throw some light on it...
> > 
> > There is an old pejorative phrase from Western
> > Movies: "The only good 
> > Indian is a dead Indian."
> > 
> > One problem with ontologies is that they foster
> > hierarchical attitudes 
> > towards how things get classified. To many of us,
> > they ALWAYS have 
> > "cracks" in them through which fall the "tags" we
> > find more suitable as 
> > index/annotation bases.
> > 
> > The original to which I used the phrase had the
> > implication that there 
> > were "proper" or "authorized" ontologies that should
> > have some 
> > preferential priority instead of some method of
> > tagging that was more 
> > "folksonomic".
> > 
> > I have a history of questioning authority,
> > particularly when it comes to 
> > what might become de facto standards for
> > categorizing knowledge. The 
> > terms included in ontologies are often "maps without
> > territory" and tend 
> > to impose their existence on the organization of
> > knowledge bases.
> > 
> > Love.
> > 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 
> 

-- 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Golda Velez             gvelez@webglimpse.org           520-440-1420
Internet Workshop Web Hosting                      http://iwhome.com
Webglimpse Site Search Software                 http://webglimpse.net
		~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     Help organize the world - index your own corner of the web!

Received on Friday, 16 December 2005 16:41:13 UTC