Re: Use of Content Management Systems, ranking and usage in Semantic Web

> Getting back to the root question of CMSs, I am having a hard time figuring
> out why so little semantic web functionality is built into the current most
> popular CMSs being used.

I am not sure whether my reasons are representative of an industry but basically
its a combination of factors, ranging from a) RDF/OWL are demonstrated
to work in principle, but the applications for joe public are not yet
available. Let's consider joe public the archetype/persona, who wants
to get on the web, and either dig some info, or publish some info (two
typical tasks ). It is currently not possible to publish/use
information encoded in RDF unless you are prepared to spend some time
learning the tools, and joe public aint got time, or aint got
motivation, or both. I should be ashamed to say that I have not
managed to get anything from dbpedia, nor from tabulator, and not even
from opencalais  last time I looked at it (no more than a few minutes
though) and I ended up thinking 'they are not what I am looking for
yet, i ll try again later (that means in two years time or so)'.
b) not yet consolidated technology c) takes too much effort to work
with (I need one click functions) d) there are other ways of semantic
capabilities than using rdf (neither linkedin nor facebook use foaf,
but a 'foaf' like effect is achieved at least in part)

on this last point, I think semantic web means: create a foaf effect
(connect the nodes) *outside* the linkedin/facebook database, and I
think that's going to happen, not sure when/how


> The functionality of CMSs resembles to a large extent what intended users
> (web designers and users) expect of them in order to build sites, and
> semantic web issues apparently are not yet high on their agenda.

lots to dig in there. because there re dichotomies and people (others
like me, with degrees, a few years working in the related fields who
have got 'jobs to do' and  manage to do most things to stay alive in
the information age, but have not yet come to terms with the 'utility'
(as economic principle) of adopting semantic technologies. People
cannot see enough  benefits of having all of  their content on the web
expressed as RDF, or the benefits are marginal to the costs (time and
money required ) . however as technology, people, markets mature,
I am sure this will change
>
>
> Of the three enabling concepts, open source software, open access to digital
> repositories and the semantic web, the latter is the least developed and
> deployed, for reasons of the complexity of creating semantic content to such
> a wide range of available data and information out on the web.

again, I would go back to reconsider the term 'semantic' in its
broadest sense. dont you think relational= semantic? (as in linkedin,
facebook etc)
>
> As a mathematician, I am, I must admit, naturally suspect of software
> engineers and IT specialists who sometimes are too overly optimistic about
> software engineering and information technology and what these can achieve.
>
believe


> Archetypes and templates maybe personas and schemas to software engineers
> but they may represent different things to other disciplines including
> mathematics. > Bu that is another story and not within the scope of this list.

well it is a bit, cause semantic frameworks( ontologies) are made  of
shared vocabularies

if personas and archetypes are the same thing, then our conceptual
schemas are overlapping

>
> The point I am trying to make and which got lost in the previous emails is
> that I do not see yet how the semantic web can now or at any point in the
> near future meet the expectations of those who will want to use it, even for
> reasons maybe other than envisioned by the original creators unless we
> factor in user demands, expectations, tastes and irrationality and market
> forces.

what we can and cannot  see  is probably of limited consequence

 the 'semantic' web is an open thing, and is made up of lots and lots
and lots of layers and components, and people can use/not use them as
they like. markets are not constrained by the choices of scientists,
and the semantic web is going to happen, maybe not just one way or
another, and if something does not work well in the long term it will
die or evolve, or will be complemented by something else. its
difficult to tell the shape things will take, the web is like a lab
open for experimentation, everything will converge in the end, or be
confined to pockets of resistance

> Currently the semantic web is of importance with regard to issues related to
> (open) access to digital repositories and access to online information, and
> a relatively small community of professionals is working on making the
> semantic web a reality.

it happened all quite quickly.  in one generation, we have seen the
personal computer, and internet, its incredible already. the more
structure and context, the better the knowledge

> The transition from the current internet to a web with large domains of data
> and information with semantical content added will be subject to what users
> expect and demand in terms of functionality and tastes in terms of
> personalizing it and the way they choose to interact with other humans over
> the net.
>

> We must be ruthlessly realistic about the expectations for the use of the
> semantic web, it is in my (debatable) opinion not realistic to think that we
> will be able to realize the full potential of semantic web technology, and
> even less the potential the UN envisioned for the internet as the
> infrastructure for utilizing ICT to empower stakeholders in sustainable
> development worldwide.

aha. but that's not a technology question is it. Its a political
question. Think.
when every human on the planet will have access simultaneously to all
the knowledge that there exist, what would the world be like? Today,
access to knowledge (and resources) is what sets people apart, make
all knowledge accessible to everyone, and see how the world changes. I
agree, I am a bit of conspiracy theorist, but I think there are
conflicting interests that need to be resolved


> One of the most powerful technologies on the internet is social networking,
> which is user and personalization driven, and it would be nice if it could
> be used to promote the use of semantic web technologies in the field of
> information content creation, extraction and sharing here.

it's happening, some of us are using facebook to organise vocamp. I
dont see anything wrong with that

>
> Yet when you look at how the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative is organized
> and operates only a small fraction of the actors and stakeholder groups you
> would expect to be already participating, in fact is.
>
well, from what I remember, the little structure that we have today on
the internet is thanks to dublin core, however, a lot of xml schemas
are out there that are not DC but adhere to the same principles, so
personally I consider any metadata  schema related directly or
indirectlty to the dc family. in one sense, even all the vocabularies
like foaf and the rest of semantic vocabularies are metadata sets.
Maybe we need to expand the repositories and knowledge about these
repositories  and how can website development toolkits incorporate
them

I  asked drupal forum if there was a way of generating a foaf profile
each time a user creates their own user profile for a website, thats
very easily done, . despite the network effects reached with facebook,
that is still within a boundary. what foaf can achieve is the
overarching effect of linking a person representation on the web and
all its various profiles
so the same function has different scope with foaf I think

>
> Unless more large stakeholder groups like the global civil society,
> governments and the corporate sector are engaged we may end up in a
> situation where using the VHS versus Betamax videorecorder technology
> analogy, lesser developed technologies different from the semantic web win
> out in the quest to creating and extracting semantic content from
> information online on the internet and digital repositories.
>



> Search engine companies and other software and internet services companies
> will always put their own commercial interests first and only embrace new
> standards if they fit their corporate and commercial objectives.
>

 and hopefully in the end there will be a (semantic?) net to pull all
the pieces together
>



PDM

-- 
Paola Di Maio
School of IT
MFU.ac.th
*********************************************

Received on Saturday, 15 November 2008 05:56:54 UTC