- From: Giovanni Tummarello <g.tummarello@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 23:07:55 +0100
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: semantic-web@w3.org
>But I'm pretty sure there is now a >convincing array of 'true' applications out there, though still can't >really answer the question :-( > > > My 2 Liras, on a rather "strange" evening i am living.. it is my feeling that a "true" Semantic Web application would necessarely involve a critical mass of issues to be solved or somehow pragmatically addressed at the "same time", requiring a mixture of technical, scientific, pragmatic solutions to address direcly the needs and the socio economical models leading to an overall "net effect" in usage of structured semantics. Research, usually, doesnt address such broad interconnected issues. Probably becouse its damn hard to do and requires a visionary mind and a lot of (accademic or otherwise) freedom to persue which is hard to have usually. Seriously however i think the biggest need the SW has is an appropriate "transport layet". Http is perfect for the web, you know where to ask, you ask, you get the page you display. Http where do you exactly get the statements about http://example.com/philosophycal_concepts#freedom ? certainly nothing interesting lies on example.com, or nothing surprising anyway. Stuff that would make users go "wow" probably lies in DBs around. A "proper" "transport layer" would therefore somehow automatically (e.g. without explicitally namid the sources, else you're i nthe Sparql/named graph/well known db integration approach) connect those who ask about #freedom with those who write about it. Like URIQA but automatically across the semantic web, something P2P a bit like RDFPeers (DHT storage of RDF graphs), but without the huge traffic generated at each query. RDFGrowth attemts to display such features, we'll see if it will be of any use once deployed publically. Giovanni
Received on Wednesday, 18 January 2006 22:08:20 UTC