- From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2001 07:44:17 -0600
- To: Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Joshua Allen <joshuaa@microsoft.com> wrote: > P.S. Speaking of encyclopedias, it seems that FSF has > embarked on an "open encyclopedia" at www.nupedia.org. > In the W3C Architecture Note on Extensible languages [2] > is a reference to an interesting paper [3] that discussed > the idea that "Britannica" and other encyclopedias get > their value from how "authoritative" they are and that > the ideal example of a non-authoritative, open encyclopedia > is the WWW itself (presumably with search engines/directories). > So I am wondering exactly what space nupedia is hoping > to occupy. Oh well... The benefit of Nupedia is that it is free (libre). Thus people are allowed to modify, translate, copy and sell Nupedia articles without having to worry about copyrights. Nupedia also has an extensive peer review process to help verify articles. (swinging back around to RDF) Interestingly, the project has been discussing ways of cataloging articles without forcing a cataloging system upon the dictionary. They want a system that will allow them to classify any article independently of the article itself, and to use any classification system they wish. Then they wanted away to provide data inside Nupedia articles, so that outside processors could answer queries based on the data in the database. This was dismissed as being too far out. Sound like a certain RDF to you too? -- [ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Wednesday, 31 January 2001 08:45:02 UTC