Comments on: Is the Semantic Web Destined to be a Shadow?

By: ndanger.organism :: blog :: LOTD: 2007-11-23

ndanger.organism :: blog :: LOTD: 2007-11-23 — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 21:38:28 +0000

[...] Is the Semantic Web Destined to be a Shadow? [...]

By: Internet Alchemy » It’s OK to use URIs with Fragments in RDF

Internet Alchemy » It’s OK to use URIs with Fragments in RDF — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 09:13:10 +0000

[...] been doing some more digging on my fragmentation and shadow web themes and came across something I hadn’t really seen before or, if I have, has been [...]

By: Web 2.0 Explorer mobile edition

Web 2.0 Explorer mobile edition — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:40:25 +0000

[...] Not demonstrations of concept in the laboratory and behind the firewall. Not the creation of a shadow web. This. So thank you, Tim, for reminding us. That said, might Nova’s ‘semantic [...]

By: Nodalities

Nodalities — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 12:56:13 +0000

Who is afraid of the GGG?…

The GGG, or Giant Global Graph. It sounds like something with which you might terrify a child at bed time, but this is no Gruffalo, no Jabberwock, no Smaug. Rather it’s father-of-the-web Tim Berners-Lee’s label for his latest attempt……

By: Rudi Cilibrasi

Rudi Cilibrasi — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 02:42:26 +0000

I believe universal learning systems represent a way to bootstrap the semantic web; for example see http://complearn.org/ for one approach.

By: Richard Cyganiak

Richard Cyganiak — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 01:49:41 +0000

Ian: Thanks for the correction.

It’s not hard to serve HTML and SVG variants from the same URI and use the same fragments in a consistent way. You’ll have a hard time demonstrating any real-world breakage in that case. Fragments in almost all formats identify â€œparts of the documentâ€, so they identify fundamentally similar things. The breakage only occurs with RDF, because with RDF, fragments can identify things that are fundamentally not parts of the document.

And of course content negotiation is the problem. If there was no content negotiation, the entire problem would go away. Hashless URIs would be documents, hash URIs would be things inside the document (described in the document, or parts of the document, depending on the format). It couldn’t be simpler. Personally, I’d rather dump content negotiation from the web architecture than fragment identifiers. Content negotiation is nice in theory but doesn’t work well in practice. Fragment identifiers are messy in theory, but work well in practice.

b) Yes, 303 is a poor patch. c) Fair enough.

By: RDFa » Blog Archive » RDFa and the Shadow Web

RDFa » Blog Archive » RDFa and the Shadow Web — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 00:36:30 +0000

[...] Davis has an interesting post about the Shadow Web that may be created if we don’t bridge the existing (”clickable”, as I like to [...]

By: danbri’s foaf stories » Shadows on the Web

danbri’s foaf stories » Shadows on the Web — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:19:19 +0000

[...] today! All I wanted to write about right now is the “shadow” metaphor. It crops up in Ian’s posts, and he cites Rob McCool’s writings. Since I’m unequiped with an IEEE login, I’m [...]

By: Mike Linksvayer » Semantic Web Web Web

Mike Linksvayer » Semantic Web Web Web — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 22:01:20 +0000

[...] reminded of this by Ian Davis’ post Is the Semantic Web Destined to be a Shadow?: My belief is that trust must be considered far earlier and that it largely comes from usage and [...]

By: Internet Alchemy » Isn’t The Web Built From Links?

Internet Alchemy » Isn’t The Web Built From Links? — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 21:40:13 +0000

[...] my shadow web post hasn’t convinced you then try this thought [...]