Re: Semantic Layers (Was: Interpretation of RDF reification)

John F. Sowa wrote:

> My complaint about RDF and OWL is that they are terrible languages
> for all three categories of humans -- #1, #2, and #3 -- and they
> are also horribly inefficient for computers.  They do not have
> a target audience.

The categorization of humans without dating/indexing has the usual 
problems associated with confusing maps/territories.

The first exposure to HTML for most of the "category 3" people of a 
decade ago was near-traumatic but after a time the principles of 
"marking up" content was readily handled by millions of people.

"Your Mother" started out afraid of all this computer stuff but before 
long was teaching her sewing circle how to reply to email and 
subsequently how to erect a Web site. That was some indication that 
"mother-sub-1988" was not "mother-sub-2008" and that being indexed as a 
"newbie" became invalid even before categorization as "guru" was 

The notion we cling to so tightly is that content (and its important 
confrere meta-content) is independent of its indexing/annotation and can 
only really be handled by people in ivory towers wearing white lab coats 
and attending conferences celebrating soon-to-be obsolete notions.

So the "target audience" might develop from the mere existence of these 
acronymically cloaked languages until, lo and behold!, the inmates are 
running the asylum.

The complaints about the inadequacies of HTML without attention to its 
potential for inclusion of us all have been extensive, but misguided 
because without it we would still be attending conferences celebrating 
the principles of hypertext links without any significant impact on our 
lives instead of the potential of universal sharing of information.


Received on Monday, 27 March 2006 12:12:47 UTC