wie z.B. SIGNMAC! (semantic intercommon ground for non machine-aided coummunication)

das war doch noch nie ein problem ;-)

seriously: glaub' nicht, dass man das semantic web als widerspruchsfreie vollständig ausdefinierte zone sehen sollte, das wird's nämlich definitiv nicht werden. wenn irgendwas, dann geht's in richtung fuzzy/haarig/probabilistisch - auch wenn momentan (imo viel zu viel) geld für research verbraten wird, von dem man die wenig erbaulichen ergebnisse eh schon seit den frühen 80ern kennt ...

is auch mein hauptgrund, dass zu viele falsche leute zu viel erwarten und das mit anderem schaas verknüpfen werden. also erstmal die alten sachen gscheit implementieren und parallel die semantischen grundlagen im web mittels tastatur verbessern.

my cynism hasn't reached that point yet, that i would automatically estimate a word like 'semantic', that wasn't at the forefront of computer science for a while, just gets recalled because its worth more research money than before. at least a tiny amount of notions of: making things better, maybe worth to look at it again, are still around.

if i look today at the old way of aggregating information (news agencies), merging (if you are lucky media is doing this for you) and interpreting the meaning (journalists and readers) i can't see any development here so far. still the old game stays in place: who is saying something. (lead by the idea: do i know you, do you know me) and: who comes first, gets served first. what's coming over the ticker first gets out first. no matter what. (defining ontologies and the restriction of time and space). even journalists are using google and have some clue about its problems, i can't see that this has influenced the production of news so far.

how i understand the ideas for a semantic web, i don't see that the result will be different to what we had. considering statistical methods and the restrictions given by the use of databases i think foerster and weston were quite right to use it as a method for solving crossword puzzles. here is the question, there is the answer. a seven letter word. it fits into your given space (metadata). well, that's really no advantage at all. you can check the outcome on a daily bases.

so, where do we get the metadata? automatic --flawed as before; remember AI FAILED. manual -- gee, seems like we're back to human forms of intelligence again. metadata benefit -- faster search, once the extraction has been done. sheeesh. the 'web as it was intended'? depends on who was doing the intending. even vanevar bush's 'memex' was smarter than our HTML browsers,because he wanted to engage the human in a conversation about contrasts -- even if the back end could never work with microfiche and mechanical retrieval -- meaning is resonance, conversation is synchronization (and not) [derived from Pask]

did you know there was a life before bush's 'as we may think' and memex?

actually if you wouldn't have written "and not" i would have to argue against "meaning is resonance, conversation is synchronisation" :). that would be something you can measure and break down to a simplifying formular that just leads to a certain point (streamlined view)

everybody to chomsky's transformationssyntax and then various transformationssemantik again, all 50ies and 60ies stuff, all of it failed. Die Gehirne sind über geschriebene Sprache seit ungefähr 3500 Jahren und gesprochene Sprache noch viel länger vernetzt. Und das ist ein ganz riesiger und ganz langsamer Filter. Die Beschleunigung seit Papier und Movable Type von China nach Europa gelangte, seit Guddenbersch und ein paar andere diese irre Kombination mit der römischen Schrift auf den Boden gezerrt haben, eh schon nicht ohne Probleme. Das Kippen von der Literalität (speziell Breitenmathematik ...) ins Elektrische, da wo wir sie schön rein gebraucht hättenm, bringt eh nur die alten Gurus ala Thomas oder Goldberg zum Weinen. Also please: keine weiteren Beschleunigungen, wenn's leicht geht. Get the rythm, friends, not the speed!

And then: we don't really want those metadata, because everybody would suddenly see the amount of data, that better be erased before it gets copied and drives ever more money to sick technocrats that want our money for their crazy business plan.

it took dublin core 5 years to define 15 elements. that doesn't sound like speed to me, not when you read what they defined. maybe they could have choosen one nice island per year to discuss one element, but somehow i guess they did something like this anyhow. so at least some had fun and sun thinking meta.

¿marketers? take a look over here

when you talk about gurus you mean dave thomas? adele goldberg? actually i wonder what a pragmatist thinks about all this. have to go and look if he has some thoughts over there ...