tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post4090793697261264439..comments2011-03-21T21:09:28.740-07:00Seth Laddhttps://profiles.google.com/118397406534237711570noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-25119021322828230432011-03-21T21:09:28.741-07:002011-03-21T21:09:28.741-07:00I was always a fan of the &quot;symbolic web&quot;, which is much closer to the truth than &quot;semantic&quot;. Doesn&#39;t sound as nice as data-web though.Gunnar Aastrand Grimneshttp://www.semikolon.co.uk/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-47644020964139113862011-03-21T21:09:28.337-07:002011-03-21T21:09:28.337-07:00[...] Data Web이라고 부르자고 하는 시도는 여기저기서 있어왔습니다. (참고 : Semantic Web doesn’t have to be difficult) 이제와서 제가 다시 빌려다 쓰는것에 불과하지요^^ 어쨌든 우리가 하나의 [...]왜 Data Web 이라고 부를까? | The Humbhttp://humbleprogrammer.net/blog/?p=286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-8838276110938760032008-01-07T21:36:31.000-08:002008-01-07T21:36:31.000-08:00[...] Data Web이라고 부르자고 하는 시도는 여기저기서 있어왔습니다. (참고 : Semantic Web doesn’t have to be difficult) 이제와서 제가 다시 빌려다 쓰는것에 불과하지요^^ 어쨌든 우리가 하나의 [...]왜 Data Web 이라고 부를까? | The Humble Programmerhttp://humbleprogrammer.net/blog/?p=286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-22296508239640946762007-10-06T01:30:05.000-07:002007-10-06T01:30:05.000-07:00[...] Semantic Web Doesn’t Have to Be Difficult 라는 글에서는 흥미로운 주장을 합니다. 새로운 이름이 필요하다는 것이죠. 접근 방식은 물론, 우리 스스로가 ‘Semantic’ 이라는 명칭에 얽매여서, 그 본질적인 가능성을 잘못 판단하고 있는 것은 아닐까요? ‘ 웹은 의미를 가진다?’ 아니, 무슨 의미란 말이죠? 지금은 그럼 의미가 없나요? 아니 그게 말이죠.. 어쩌구 저쩌구… [...]Data Web , Semantic Web의 또 다른 이름 | The Humble Programmerhttp://humbleprogrammer.net/blog/?p=273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-16746904480285174732007-09-20T15:30:41.000-07:002007-09-20T15:30:41.000-07:00I was always a fan of the &quot;symbolic web&quot;, which is much closer to the truth than &quot;semantic&quot;. Doesn&#39;t sound as nice as data-web though.Gunnar Aastrand Grimneshttp://www.semikolon.co.uk/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-80639935658622854902007-09-20T07:57:05.000-07:002007-09-20T07:57:05.000-07:00Ah, but you&#39;re already overloading the concept: there&#39;s no &quot;universal meaning&quot; in the semantic web. Is there a universal meaning for anything? Well, maybe mathematics. :)<br><br>And so what if the data web is &quot;just a bunch of web sites as web services&quot;? That seemed to turn out just fine.adminnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-31281155866447227312007-09-20T07:18:47.000-07:002007-09-20T07:18:47.000-07:00Defined that way, I agree, but then its just a bunch of web sites as web services. The piece that you are dropping is the universal meaning and thats one of the hard parts. Also, expressing stuff in RDF is not clearly the best way, as simple XML or even RSS-flavor could be good..Alex Iskoldhttp://www.adaptiveblue.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-23773257853886674072007-09-20T06:15:02.000-07:002007-09-20T06:15:02.000-07:00I think you bring up a good point. The semantic web, as it is usually described and sold, is interesting from a research perspective. Because it smacks of AI, which is always interesting and promising, but always &quot;5 to 10 years off.&quot;<br><br>The data web is pragmatic, useful, and all the technologies are here. So why is that interesting? :)adminnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8601579266012455634.post-80148782681811814042007-09-20T05:09:03.000-07:002007-09-20T05:09:03.000-07:00+1<br><br>On the other hand: If you&#39;re looking for grant money or selling consulting services the &quot;semantic&quot; is god-sent :-)Eric Jainhttp://eric.jain.name/noreply@blogger.com