RDF is not just for dreamers - Revision history

imported>Denny: Reverted edits by Ihonevigefa (Talk); changed back to last version by Denny

2010-12-19T08:27:18Z

Reverted edits by Ihonevigefa (Talk); changed back to last version by Denny

imported>Ihonevigefa at 11:20, 24 November 2010

2010-11-24T11:20:08Z

imported>Denny at 03:45, 28 December 2007

2007-12-28T03:45:08Z

imported>Denny: New page: {{pubdate|9|October|2005}} Sometimes I stumble upon posts that leave me wonder, what actually do people think about the whole Semantic Web idea, and about standards like RDF, OWL and the l...

2007-12-27T22:52:33Z

New page: {{pubdate|9|October|2005}} Sometimes I stumble upon posts that leave me wonder, what actually do people think about the whole Semantic Web idea, and about standards like RDF, OWL and the l...

New page

{{pubdate|9|October|2005}}
Sometimes I stumble upon posts that leave me wonder, what actually do people think about the whole Semantic Web idea, and about standards like RDF, OWL and the like. Do you think academia people went out and purposefully made them complicated? That they don't want them to get used?

Christopher St. John wrote down some nice experience with using [http://artofsystems.blogspot.com/2005/09/rdf-printf-debugging-testing.html RDF for logging]. And he was pretty astonished that ''"RDF can actually be a pretty nifty tool if you don't let it go to your head. And it worked great."''

And then: ''"Using RDF doesn't actually add anything I couldn't have done before, but it does mean I get to take advantage of tons of existing tools and expertise."'' Well, that's pretty much the point of standards. And the point of the whole Semantic Web idea. There won't be anything you will be able to do later, that you're not able to do today! You know, assembler was pretty turing-complete already. But having your data in standard formats helps you. ''"You can buy a book on RDF, but you're never going to buy a book on whatever internal debug format you come up with"''

Stop being surprised that some things on the Semantic Web work. And don't expect miracles either.

<noinclude>{{Semantic Nodix post}}</noinclude>
{{Missing comments}}

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:45, 28 December 2007
Line 9:		Line 9:

	<noinclude>{{Semantic Nodix post}}</noinclude>		<noinclude>{{Semantic Nodix post}}</noinclude>
−	~~{{Missing comments}}~~

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{pubdate|9|October|2005}}
 Sometimes I stumble upon posts that leave me wonder, what actually do people think about the whole Semantic Web idea, and about standards like RDF, OWL and the like. Do you think academia people went out and purposefully made them complicated? That they don't want them to get used?
-Christopher St. John wrote down some nice experience with using [http://artofsystems.blogspot.com/2005/09/rdf-printf-debugging-testing.html RDF for logging]. And he was pretty astonished that ''&quot;RDF can actually be a pretty nifty tool if you don't let it go to your head. And it worked great.&quot;''
+Christopher St. John wrote down some nice experience with using [http://artofsystems.blogspot.com/2005/09/rdf-printf-debugging-testing.html RDF for logging]. And he was pretty astonished that ''"RDF can actually be a pretty nifty tool if you don't let it go to your head. And it worked great."''
-And then: ''&quot;Using RDF doesn't actually add anything I couldn't have done before, but it does mean I get to take advantage of tons of existing tools and expertise.&quot;'' Well, that's pretty much the point of standards. And the point of the whole Semantic Web idea. There won't be anything you will be able to do later, that you're not able to do today! You know, assembler was pretty turing-complete already. But having your data in standard formats helps you. ''&quot;You can buy a book on RDF, but you're never going to buy a book on whatever internal debug format you come up with&quot;''
+And then: ''"Using RDF doesn't actually add anything I couldn't have done before, but it does mean I get to take advantage of tons of existing tools and expertise."'' Well, that's pretty much the point of standards. And the point of the whole Semantic Web idea. There won't be anything you will be able to do later, that you're not able to do today! You know, assembler was pretty turing-complete already. But having your data in standard formats helps you. ''"You can buy a book on RDF, but you're never going to buy a book on whatever internal debug format you come up with"''
 Stop being surprised that some things on the Semantic Web work. And don't expect miracles either.
-&lt;noinclude&gt;{{Semantic Nodix post}}&lt;/noinclude&gt;
+<noinclude>{{Semantic Nodix post}}</noinclude>