Re: schema.org

Hiya,

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Patrick Durusau <patrick-Q/[email protected]> wrote:
> The Semantic Web has gone from intelligent agents wandering the
> semanticsphere to simply linking data which may or may not be consistent,
> useful or documented. According to some linked data advocates, we sort all
> that out after it is all linked together. If that is your idea of a winning strategy,
> then we may have different opinions about what it means to win.

It *is* a winning strategy even if both you and I think it sucks
balls, they're still winning even if they'll be worse off in the
future (when they do try to sort it all out). I don't think for a
second our definition of "winning" are different, but I think the
difference is that I refuse to call this struggle "winning." We're not
winning, and I think it's easy to read from my post the notion that I
think we're outright losing. But yes, not losing from a technology
perspective, but from a use and embrace perspective.

> I think most of our problems have been self-inflicted.
> In part by advocating a model rather than results.
> I am as guilty as anyone in that regard.

Me too, I'm afraid. Back in my days I thought the data model argument
was a slam dunk for database geeks all over, up and down the
technology stack, but apparently there's something eerily comforting
about those tables and rows. Again I think the distance between the
actuality of tables and rows, and the abstract conceptual thinking
behind "tables and rows" are simply too great for people to grok and
care about.

> Topic maps could start winning by delivering a useful result that allows the
> user of a topic map based search to be more informed than users of other
> systems.

Not sure what that even means these days. Beating Google at search
seems like an insurmountable task, especially with a rigid tool like
Topic Maps where Google's strength lies within the chaotic nature of
language and semantics, and how to suck meaning from that. I'm not
sure that TM is even capable of adding much to the field of search,
and I'm sure that's somewhat of an insulting statement right there :)
but I just don't see it. Semantic searching is great for rigid and
highly structured data, but the state of most datasets kills that
dream. I don't think TM is the problem in itself, it's more that the
reality of data management gets in the way of doing it well. But
that's kinda off-topic, I'd admit.

> But the user in the topic map case need know nothing of topics, associations
> and occurrences. What they need to know is that a particular solution is
> delivering the information they need faster and more accurately than
> another.

But then the problem is just that; if Google deliver results that we
can't match, why go with us? How does TM add anything to the current
state of search? Hooks to subjects, yeah, yeah, we know that one, but
even that is not as simple as it sounds. What subject? We don't have a
solution to semantic mismatch as you well know, even though that would
make a killer app, I don't see why Topic Maps could do that any better
than any other technology.

Isn't that the problem, though? Topic Maps is food for geeks, but if
we can't convince the geeks, then what's the point of Topic Maps?

> We have to remember that none of the software architecture, language, model,
> etc., issues are religious issues for users. And it is a mistake to try to
> educate users or convince them of one way or the other on such issues.

You keep going on about "users", and as much as I hear your argument
and kinda agree with it, we're ultimately talking about Topic Maps. If
the user don't care about Topic Maps but only the results, then why
should anyone care about Topic Maps? The answer; it's a better tool to
deal with a whole bunch of stuff, but somehow geeks through the world
do not agree with us for some reason.

> What constructive steps would you suggest?

At this point, none. Me and a lot of others here have done it all,
from presentations, demos, hacks, articles, debates, online
discussions, applications, you name it. But there seems to be
something about the TM paradigm that just don't appeal to most geeks.
It could be the times, it could be the premise, it could be the
effort, the mental capacity of people, we didn't have a larger backer,
some company embrace, the right people, a whole number of things.

Don't read this as "give up", I'm just tired of it all. For me Topic
Maps don't bring any better results to most of the work out there
available. (Unless you live in Oslo, Norway ... there's a disturbance
on the time-space continuum there for some reason) People like the
sound of it, for sure. And a minuscule bunch of enthusiasts make sure
there's still a few apps and portals around to bear its name, but the
fervent glory of the early days are gone, lost in a struggle for doing
the right thing in a world which prefers things done normative.


Regards,

Alex
-- 
 Project Wrangler, SOA, Information Alchemist, UX, RESTafarian, Topic Maps
--- http://shelter.nu/blog/ ----------------------------------------------
------------------ http://www.google.com/profiles/alexander.johannesen ---