[iDC] please make comments regarding semantic overlay term

[Danny Ayers]

On 17/03/2008, Paul Prueitt <psp at ontologystream.com> wrote:
> What stops the exploration of topic maps in the US markets is the
>  stranglehold that RDF has.   One may choose to ignore the mind set
>  that AI and RDF have created over funding.  (www.secondschool.net)

I've been following RDF since fairly early on, and historically it's
been notable how much of the development has been bottom-up, and
driven by independent enthusiasts, with little more than lip service
at best from the big players.

While RDF might now attract funding that might otherwise have gone
into topic maps, I'd suggest the fact that knowledge representation on
the web is actually getting funding is a positive thing - there are
1001 different areas the money could have gone. This isn't necessarily
a bad thing for topic maps, which are under the same general umbrella.
Build a compelling app with topic maps, use the buzzword 'semantic'
when you talk to the VCs, laugh all the way to the bank...

>  Yes there is some value in RDF, I celebrate this also.   The point is
>  that there is no free market here, there is gaming and fraud.  So RDF
>  and topic maps do not compete on merits - unless the merits are
>  defined as profits to the incumbent IT powers.

This seems a very glass-half-empty, and not a little paranoid
perspective. If you want to encourage wider adoption of topic maps
then your time might be considerably better spent writing a GRDDL
transform for XTM, rather than tilting at windmills.

>  Eventually, like alternating current overcoming the demonization and
>  distortions by Edison and friends, topic maps will be seen to be
>  interpretable in real time by humans and yet process-able by
>  computing environments.  RDF is not interpretable by normal folks in
>  everyday situations.  The use of RDF requires a clergy.  (Oh my, how
>  nice!  Profits and control.  )

Sorry, you are misinformed. The model is simple, and there's no reason
for the syntaxes to be difficult. Check Turtle syntax, RDFa, even
microformats like XFN which can be directly interpreted as RDF. An
awful lot of *existing* applications can use  RDF as a medium, no
change to end-user requirements at all.

Even when you do deal with the syntax directly, it's not exactly
rocket science.
Try:

@prefix : <http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/>

[ a :Person ; :name "Danny Ayers" ]
:knows
[ a :Person ; :name "Paul Prueitt" ] .

Ok, I don't expect you to know what the @prefix line is for (it makes
the terms prefixed with : into URIs), but the rest is a lot more
legible than, say, XTM.

>  The cute arguments by the RDF crowd about the
>
>  > all intents and purposes topic maps can
>  > be expressed in RDF
>
> was a polemic strong enough to inhibit topic map as an alternative.
>  Yea for the incumbents!

There's no need to view Topic Maps and RDF as rival technologies when
Topic Maps can be expressed in RDF.

>  Natural language use does not force a logic on us, in the same way as
>  OWL does.

No-one's forcing OWL on us.

Topic maps are entailed when interpreted by humans, much
>  like a book.  Logic is a religion.  It does have usefulness, but if
>  there is no soul to the religion; it is only one more form of control
>  over the masses.

That isn't any more useful than saying "numbers are a religion" -
logic is only one more branch of mathematics (that also happens to
play well with computers).

>  You say:
>
>
>  > While the Semantic Web
>  > languages are crude in expressive ability compared to human language,
>  > they are considerably more tractable.
>
>
> and I say " in what way "tractable".

Much easier to use in software.

The end goal here is not to
>  turn over the world to a logic machine, but to empower people to
>  communicate in new ways in real time about things that are happening.

I don't disagree, check :
http://sioc-project.org/
http://www.foaf-project.org/

While I agree communication is the biggy, computers can also help us
with a lot more, for instance: computation.

>  Unless there is some other kind of comment, I see no reason to
>  continue this well know exposition... we have all seen this before.

Fair enough.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 
http://dannyayers.com
~
http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/this_weeks_semantic_web/