Re: Semantic Web Hackings

"Sean B. Palmer" wrote:

>Part of the "How to create a Semantic Web in just 10 days" series :-)

... well we're behind schedule ... well have to work faster
now to catch up :O!  Seriously this is a good idea .. but
maybe we should narrow it a bit though ... perhaps we could
try to create a Semantic Web only about the pioneers  of the
Semantic Web ... kind of a Semantic Web Interest Group Web.
For example we should be able to agree on the kinds of nodes
such a web would contain:  may I suggest a very partial
start of node types:

- people of the semantic web
- web sites of the semantic web
- software tools of the semantic web
- forums of the semantic web

> Yes, that's the whole point! But then you have that assertion, you need it
> to say <Description about="me">, and I am suggesting that we use our email
> addresses as an identifier for "me".

Are you intentionally attempting to keep those things you
say about yourself separate from those things said about you
by others?   Well I don't think that's a good idea.  For
example, I have a project afloat to read this interest group
and publish the web sites that are mentioned by its
participants.  So I will want to make statements about you

resource="" />
  <rai:email resource="" />
  <rai:name>Sean B. Palmer</rai:name>
         <bag bagId="whateverId">
                <li rdf:resource=""
                <li rdf:resource="" />

Now my intention would be that this information that I am
publishing about you would smush into the same node with the
information that you are publishing about yourself.  That
would be the most useful, don't you think?  But if you are
going to try to maintain control of everything asserted to
this node,  then we would need to agree to use two different
nodes to refer to you ... one authored only by you .. and
one authored by everyone else.  I think this will only 
contribute to fragmentation and the tower of babel.

On the other hand, I think it would be useful if you and
~only you~ would at least designate a URI for the (one and
only ideal) node that represents you as a person.  Once that
URI is know, then we will not need to use fuzzy matching to
aggregate our knowledge of you, and our representation of
you would no longer need to be be anonymous.  Any URI
structure would do, i don't think we all need to use the
same one,  and I can think of none better than
"" .. as long as we can trust
that you and ~only you~ are the person that asserted that
was the URI of the ideal node representing yourself.

Seth Russell
Still looking for a RDF parser for the win32 platform...

Received on Sunday, 31 December 2000 20:02:34 UTC