- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@sidar.org>
- Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 16:50:57 +0200
- To: "M-L Chung" <menglin.chung@gmail.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
On Tue, 03 May 2005 18:14:49 +0200, M-L Chung <menglin.chung@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Meng Lin > I know maybe I'm asking stupid questions, but I really need your help. There are no stupid questions, although lots of people are too stupid to ask questions :-) > Are there any websites based on RDF organizing the resources too? > Any digital libraries or portals? I am pretty sure that the New Zealand National Library uses RDF to organise at least a part of their collection. There are services like RPMfind [1] or foafnaut [2] that are based on using RDF information, and there are tools like SWED that search RDF collections. I guess there are lots of other systems that use RDF to drive their websites - I am pretty sure that the University of maryland RDF group does this, but don't have the details on hand. > Any websites you're impressed on implementing this two technologies > are appreciated. > > I cannot perceive their "power" of knowledge representation or > knowledge organization > because we can also represent semantic relationships without using > TMs(or RDF). > Could anyone tell me what's the advantage for a website(or digital > library, portal...) > building with TMs(or RDF) ? (especially the advantage which couldn't > be accomplished without TMs [or RDF] ) Well, as a user you shouldn't have to see what is underneath the system. Google never tells users how their system really works (that way they are a bit safer from spammers and their system works better, but whatever it is, it makes it work better than Alata Vista did in 1998. This is what you should see with semantic web based systems (and whatever is underneath google, it must be a bit like a semantic web system). One advantage of RDF in particular is that it is very easy to share information, and to decide after you have started to build your system how two different collections are related. And to change your mind with more experience and provide a better mapping between two or several collections. This could be done with anything that is widely used and allows for easy merging, but most systems don't meet both those criteria. In other words there is nothing much RDF does that you couldn't do without RDF except being compatible with other RDF. But the fact taht there is so much of it, and it provides for easy merging, and has a lot of tools available means that it is pretty easy to take advantage of the power, rather than buildding new tools and systems (which is more expensive). cheers Chaals PS This list has mostly moved to "semantic-web@w3.org" <semantic-web@w3.org> (which seems to me a bad idea, since it means people who find this list will wonder why it has gone so quiet). You might find that is a more useful place to ask questions now. -- Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar charles@sidar.org +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
Received on Sunday, 8 May 2005 14:51:07 UTC