W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Show me the money - (was Subjects as Literals)

From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
Date: Fri, 02 Jul 2010 05:57:28 -0400
Message-ID: <4C2DB808.3020109@durusau.net>
To: Ian Davis <lists@iandavis.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, nathan@webr3.org, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>

On 7/2/2010 5:27 AM, Ian Davis wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 2, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Patrick Durusau<patrick@durusau.net>  wrote:
>> I make this point in another post this morning but is your argument that
>> investment by vendors =
> I think I just answered it there, before reading this message. Let me
> know if not!
I think you made a very good point about needing examples so user can 
say: "I want to do that."

Which was one of the strong points of HTML.

I am less convinced that argues in favor of vendor position that their 
investment equals how things have to be on the technical side.

Consider that when users see a large visualization of the WWW they 
think, "I want to do that!", but when they see the graph code required, 
they become less interested. ;-)

I am less inclined to listen to vendors and much more inclined to listen 
to users.

A short story to illustrate the issue:

The Library of Congress Subject Headings, could be considered an 
"ontology" of sorts, has been under construction for decades. But until 
Karen Drabenstott (now Karen Marley) decided to ask the question of how 
effectively do users of the LCSH fare, no one had asked the question. I 
won't keep you in suspense, the results were:

> Overall percentages of correct meanings for subject headings in the 
> original order of subdivisions were as follows: children, 32%, adults, 
> 40%, reference 53%, and technical services librarians, 56%.


See "Understanding Subject Heading in Library Catalogs" 

It may be that the RDF stack is everything it is reported to be, but 
that does not mean that it fits the needs of users as they see them. The 
only way to know that is to ask. Asking the few users that mistakenly 
wander into working group meetings is probably insufficient.

Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend!


Patrick Durusau
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 09:58:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:11 UTC