- From: Hutchison, Nigel <Nigel.Hutchison@softwareag.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:45:31 +0100
- To: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
There are a couple of things which make RDF and the Semantic Web difficult to sell. One is that it is a wee bit boring. I've yet to see a presentation about RDF which is as interesting as, for instance a Topic maps presentation. In a desperate attempt to make their subject interesting some presenters make a giant leap from the nitty gritty to the "This will make the world wide web understandable by machines" sort of statement (accompanied by arm waving). This gets picked up by the sort of people who write articles like the one below or even worse by the people quoted in it. They are bored by the first half of the presentation and misled by the second. In fact RDF is pretty useful starting at the really banal level. If you have a lot of RDF information you can build things which are not in fact banal and are really useful and so on. This doesn't seem to be getting across. What is so great about atoms is that you can build molecules from them. Some molecules can be really interesting - we call them proteins - and so on - ultimately you get really unimaginable consequences like elephants and people, who build jumbo jets etc. But, - looking at atoms, it is not obvious that it is so . It was not obvious in the early nineties that something as primitive as HTTP and HTML would scale up to what we have now. Quite a few people - not just journalists and analysts - have great difficulty jumping this chasm. It would be nice if we could show them a bridge. Sure some people may be clever enough one day to build and AI application that uses RDF information. But the 99% of other useful possible applications of RDF which are modest enough to be only fast or sophisticated or interoperable or extensible or comprehensive or user friendly are getting labeled as as A.I. What we get is the message that the Semantic Web will enhance Web Services by applying AI to them. Oh yeah? This does not help regards Nigel Hutchison Nigel W.O Hutchison Chief Scientist Software AG Uhlandstr 12,D-64297 Darmstadt, Germany +49 6151 92 1207 -----Original Message----- From: John Punin [mailto:puninj@cs.rpi.edu] Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2002 6:08 AM To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Cc: John Punin Subject: Wanted: Web services standard (Article) Joshua Allen sent this message to XML-dev : http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-835247.html Looks like the beginnings of an invented controversy. "AI-Nut Semantic Webbers vs. Greedy Conglomerate Web Service-ites". I would hate to see people fall for this ploy to write exciting copy and end up polarizing their opinions.
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 03:45:36 UTC