RE: The Object Oriented Web

Well stated and thanks for the sanity check (et ne vous excusez pas: votre anglais vaut mille fois plus de certaines des bêtises que l'on entend à propos de soi-disant "intelligence artificielle", en quelque soit la langue exprimée...)


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Manuel Vila
Sent: 07 November 2007 09:34
To: Semantic Web
Subject: Re: The Object Oriented Web

For the love of god, why everyone are so missing the point? Is my  
writing so bad (don't hesitate to tell me, I'm French and I know that  
my English writing is terrible)? Who is speaking about Artificial  
Intelligence there? Not me, it's not my project at all, far from  
there. When I claim that computers would be able to "talk" to each  
others, of course it's not about a normal conversation as humans can  
do it. Computers will still speak only about what they know, about  
what they were programmed for. So please, forget this small metaphoric  
part of my text and try to go forward. :)


Manuel Vila

Le 6 nov. 07 à 21:26, Alejandro Cabral a écrit :

> I agree with your analysis Renato, though I am as excited as Manuel  
> is about thinking the web in ways we haven´t done so before. The  
> best conclusion I can offer is that while most humans are not really  
> concious of the rules of their learnt languages, but barely aware of  
> it (instinct helps there), machines still need to know these rules  
> from a to z to be able to work / communicate with other machines.
> We still have a long way to go to get to that place where  
> "Omnius"(Herbert's Dune Prequel Series) is possible.
> Regards,
> <oracle_sig_logo.gif>
> Alejandro Cabral| Channel Campaign Manager| 54.11.4339.6376 -  
> Oracle Direct LAD
> Av. Ing. Huergo 1167 | Cap. Fed., C1107AOL | Buenos Aires, Argentina
> Renato Golin wrote:
>> Manuel Vila wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>> I would be very happy to get some feedback about the concept of  
>>> "Object
>>> Oriented Web" as I just outlined here:
>>> Feel free to send your comments either here or on my blog.
>> Hi Manuel,
>> Once I felt very close to what you say in your post, but than reading
>> the many high-quality posts in this mailing list I've changed  
>> completely
>> my opinion about it.
>> Although Andreas got a bit too deterministic in his reply he shares  
>> the
>> thoughts of many (not me) and it was by understanding their POV I've
>> changed my mind from something surrealistically simplistic as you  
>> state
>> in your post to something more feasible.
>> First, I do believe that machines can talk to each other without any
>> human interaction and it's not that hard, but won't also be human- 
>> like.
>> Second, the whole artificial intelligence movement is too focused in
>> simulating human behaviour that they forget that a program doesn't  
>> need
>> to be human to be intelligent. And last, there are some basic things
>> like instincts and collective unconscious that can be created new for
>> machines and don't have to be copied from our experience. But  
>> that's a
>> discussion for a completely different mailing list.
>> The role of RDF in this "revolution" we're all anxiously waiting on  
>> AI
>> can be more important than we know today and that's the feeling of  
>> many
>> people I talk to, but still it's a gut-feeling rather than something
>> concrete. The concrete about RDF is exactly what Andreas said:  
>> organize
>> the data so we can retrieve it more efficiently. Learning from that  
>> data
>> is far from our reach with today's technology and it's maybe not even
>> the right time to think about it as it'll put too much expectations  
>> on
>> the semantic technology that won't necessarily happen soon.
>> Unfortunately, people with money don't like to wait. We shouldn't  
>> tell
>> them what they can do next decade as they'll want it for next year.
>> My 2 pence...
>> cheers,
>> --renato

Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2007 11:11:24 UTC