W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > April 2002


From: Libby Miller <Libby.Miller@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 12:16:06 +0100 (BST)
To: "Sigfrid Lundberg, NetLab" <siglun@gungner.lub.lu.se>
cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, "R.V.Guha" <guha@guha.com>, www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0204181202290.16927-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

> I'm sorry, but at least currently, the semantic web has a very weak case
> for use in a information retrieval context.

Having just spoken about RDF query at Netlab to the digital libraries
community[1], I'd have to agree with this statement, and as Siggie says,
it's largely a matter of absence of tools, both in terms of
functionality (especially substring matching) and in terms of ease of
use (or lack of).

The other issue is a lack of a compelling reason for use. I tried to
argue that using RDF modelling principles could help organisations now
with managing data which might change, or which they could not control
(e.g. [2]). But currently the overheads are high for using RDF -
understanding it, finding and using the tools - so that RDF data
creation is rather like a public good which will not be provided by
the market.

I'd disagree that RDF query has to be very complex to be useful, but the
case for people to use RDF at this moment is not strong, so the issue is
somewhat moot.



[1] http://ilrt.org/discovery/2002/04/query/
[2] http://ilrt.org/discovery/2001/11/ilrt-rdf-paper/
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 07:28:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:35 UTC