Mailing List Archive: 49091 messages
  • Home
  • Script library
  • AltME Archive
  • Mailing list
  • Articles Index
  • Site search
 

"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