Re: Call for Comments: SKOS Primer: W3C Working Draft 21 February 2008

 From the "metadata is good, ontology is bad" camp, see:

http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html

Azamat's suggestion should be taken seriously by everyone interested in 
the semantic web.

--Paul

Richard Newman wrote:
> 
>>>  If somebody is striving for semantic web, he must have a good  
>>> learning about
>>>  the nature of meaning
>>>  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_%28linguistic%29 ) and the  
>>> modes of
>>>  signification ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sign)determined by  the 
>>> kinds of
>>>  things signified and the kinds of things which signify (signs,  
>>> symbols,
>>>  codes, terms, words).
>>
>>
>> There I disagree strongly, in the first place probably because I use a
>> different definition of "semantic web".
> 
> 
> Put another way: Azamat is holding the hammer of semiotics, and  
> everything looks like a nail.
> 
> Aside from any objection to semiotics, there is a spectrum of  
> completeness in modeling; very few applications need a "perfect" data  
> model to get useful work done. In fact, since we are still using  
> limited computers with disks and processors, and an answer now is  
> better than an answer at some future time, a tradeoff between  
> correctness and complexity is absolutely necessary.
> 
> Danny gets that; I get that; the SKOS folks evidently get that.  
> Apparently Azamat does not.
> 
> -R
> 
>

Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 03:06:48 UTC