"The Semantic Web"
[1/7] from: gjones05:mail:orion at: 11-Apr-2001 8:29
Interesting read by Tim Berners-Lee ("father" of the Web), et al, in
Scientific American.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html
Has REBOL written all over it, in my opinion. This seems to be one aspect
of the vision presented by Carl Sassenrath, and REBOL would seem to be one
of the most capable languages that I've seen to do this sort of work.
--Scott Jones
[2/7] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 11-Apr-2001 10:18
>Interesting read by Tim Berners-Lee ("father" of the Web), et al, in
>Scientific American.
>
>http://www.scientificamerican.com/2001/0501issue/0501berners-lee.html
>
>Has REBOL written all over it, in my opinion. This seems to be one aspect
>of the vision presented by Carl Sassenrath, and REBOL would seem to be one
>of the most capable languages that I've seen to do this sort of work.
I read this article this morning as well and thought XML first, but
REBOL second. I'm still breaking old habits... :-)
Rod.
Rod Gaither
Oak Ridge, NC - USA
[rgaither--triad--rr--com]
[3/7] from: carl:rebol at: 11-Apr-2001 8:02
Hi Scott:
Thanks for posting the reference. The "semantic web" is why
I created REBOL. In 1996 that was the vision, and it still is today.
I agree with you...
REBOL actually offers a better solution to this problem than XML.
In REBOL the generation and the interpretation can be written
within one portable language. So the sending side and the receiving
side, as well as the message itself are all REBOL.
The semantic problem is deeper than the XML guys realized.
Tagging solves only half the battle. The association back to
meaning is difficult, and the more you can give that association
functional power, the better off you are.
For instance, I can easily deal with the type and unit semantics:
[
milk 2 cups
chocolate 2 tsp.
]
but when I do:
[
mix until well distributed
drink and enjoy
]
it's more "function" than "data". REBOL handles this well.
Don't get me wrong. I am not blasting XML. It is a heavyweight
solution to the problem for folks who have the time and money
to deal with it. But, for those of us on a tight budget and
timeline, REBOL provides a more economical approach.
Unfortunately, you don't want to enter this argument. It's
better to conquer first, then explain why later.
Thanks again,
-Carl
[4/7] from: rgaither:triad:rr at: 11-Apr-2001 14:43
Hi Carl,
Well said!
I have some strong opinions about XML and its potential
for representing "information" but your points about the
handling of "function" versus "data" are excellent.
Rod.
>REBOL actually offers a better solution to this problem than XML.
>In REBOL the generation and the interpretation can be written
<<quoted lines omitted: 52>>
>[rebol-request--rebol--com] with "unsubscribe" in the
>subject, without the quotes.
Rod Gaither
Oak Ridge, NC - USA
[rgaither--triad--rr--com]
[5/7] from: petr:krenzelok:trz:cz at: 11-Apr-2001 21:14
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Sassenrath" <[carl--rebol--com]>
To: <[rebol-list--rebol--com]>
Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2001 5:02 PM
Subject: [REBOL] Re: "The Semantic Web"
> Hi Scott:
> Thanks for posting the reference. The "semantic web" is why
<<quoted lines omitted: 8>>
> meaning is difficult, and the more you can give that association
> functional power, the better off you are.
Ha! You are right. I just today thought of new generation of protocols.
During the first "handshake" phase rebol clients would exchange
init-objects, containing info like encryption, compression (yes or no), or
even parser gramatics. Then we could easily have kind of following
communication:
-"Anyone home?"
-"Ha, what do you want?"
-"Gimme your files"
-"No, dismiss!"
>> error: You were kicked from port xyz :-)
Carl, there is still many areas left for Core improvement - could you
enlighten us a little bit what do you plant to solve/reimplement/add for
3.0?
Thanks,
-pekr-
[6/7] from: gchiu:compkarori at: 13-Apr-2001 8:50
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 08:02:19 -0700
"Carl Sassenrath" <[carl--rebol--com]> wrote:
> Unfortunately, you don't want to enter this argument.
> It's
> better to conquer first, then explain why later.
>
Hadn't we better begin the offensive now then :-) ?
In the Semantic Web, software agents ( Rebol scripts? ) are
able to exchange information between themselves even when
not designed to do so. How is it proposed that this be done
now?
There are a number of Rebol scripts that mine information
now - Allen and I have some weather gathering ones, and I
also have a TV schedule script. Should we be re-writing
these so that they present the information in a common
format, and have these scripts listed in a semantic web
service directory?
--
Graham Chiu
http://www.compkarori.com/weather/
http://www.compkarori.com/tv/
[7/7] from: depotcity:telus at: 12-Apr-2001 15:17
The question isn't if you should, but rather how?
Terry Brownell
Notes
- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.
View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted