- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 00:04:37 +0100
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[that ``image'' reminded me about a real simple example]
> Well for one thing, take the Cal Pipe animation. If I were looking for
> PVC fittings, I'd find "fittings" via a search engine ("fittings" is on
> the page), but "PVC" doesn't appear in the text (it's in the animation
> though). So *people* can find this information out, but machines can't,
> and I'd like to see RDF provide that richer kind of information. (I'm
> working on a disaster recovery example application, and part of it
> involves finding sources of tents (and other shelter) on the Web. A
> surprising number of sources put useful information like how many people
> the tent can sleep in an image, rather than in text (and, of course,
> even when they put it in text you have to try to find it; in a table,
> in the legend of an image, the image itself, ...).
<h1>A simple example</h1>
the web is about "saying anything about anything"
<ul>
<li>suppose that picture i was taken at position p and time t</li>
<li>suppose that event e took place at location l and date d</li>
<li>what kind of inferences can we draw from those facts?</li>
</ul>
--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
ps I would say "not a lot if we were machines" unless we precisely
define schemas for GPS stuff, etc...
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 18:05:14 UTC