- From: Mark A Montgomery <montgomery_mark@juno.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 13:27:25 -0700
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
- Cc: timbl@w3.org
Thought I would take this opportunity to introduce myself, first time that I thought I might be able to offer something. I have both a personal and professional interest in this topic as well as the standardization process in general, particularly in how it relates to prevention of manipulation, regulation or the lack thereof, competition, and global economics. First, to an observer, this debate is really positive, and in fact the reason why I joined the list... I was very curious to see how/what type of process was being used to design a semantic web. It's one thing to design a perfect numerical network like the IP that stays above the fray of human interpretation, quite another to create a universal system that drops down into the human abyss to define individual/pieces of documents. Meta tags work pretty well in part (IMO) because they are user defined and infinite, allowing the flexibility of human dysfunction in labeling room to breathe. Since we've been working in this area for a few years, I could certainly see how a private product/organization could make definitions (an Oxford, Word, or a Google), but remain curious how to create a protocol for the diversity of human crafted documents. A fair part of the recent discussion here has been much less to do with programming than knowledge architecture- "relating to meaning". For example, Tim's post: "By analogy, note that, for example, legal concepts are referred to indirectly through the laws which define them "A non-profit as defined in Section 501(c)3" "Road vehicle as definde in Art IIB of section 82.3 of the penal code" and so on. Documents are documents. They are powerful because (with HTTP and slew of existing and future languages) we can do a whole lot with them. We can argue about their contents logically. I don't mind the semantic web architecture being built on a infrastructure of documents ((and messages))." Great example, but I'd point out that neither of these are voluntary or for that matter universal (as in global crossing all cultures and languages), but rather created by an elected legislative body or a court and enforced. One suggestion, if it is not already being done, would be to pro actively engage knowledge architects and digital librarians. In testing the predecessor to KYield in our network GWIN Pro, they were the ones who were working on policy internally, a few of which were also strong in programming. Perhaps the most important single thing I've learned in knowledge system practice and design is that communities of practice often suffer from the breadth society has to offer, something that the semantic web could help alleviate, assuming of course that the breadth will use it. Would also be interested in hooking up with partners on our project KYield and help in other ways if I am able. Thanks for your work. Founder GWIN.NET DBA KYield montgomerym@cableone.net ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 15:06:37 UTC