Comments on: A Fortune Cookie for Web 2.0

By: Trond

Trond — Sun, 27 Nov 2005 12:38:49 +0000

> meta information will become more important to us

Definitely. Especially for larger businesses. And because a semantic web would make many things so much easier.

> I think some of the problems you’ve mentioned will be resolved

Some of the problems are already partially resolved (but not used on a large scale yet). Languages like RDF, OWL and XML Topic Maps do exist, but are mostly used in “isolated” / “expert” environments. Unfortunately, there are some rather big problems remaining – like ontology alignment (already a well-studied field), actually being able to use others’ information, etc…

By: Ben Ramsey

Ben Ramsey — Thu, 17 Nov 2005 23:56:02 +0000

In the not so distant future, I think that this meta information will become more important to us, and I think some of the problems you’ve mentioned will be resolved—or, at least, there will be acceptable and agreed-upon solutions.

But, yeah, in order to share information, people (and systems) must come to certain agreements.

By: Trond

Trond — Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:59:14 +0000

From what I read here and on WikiPedia.org, I fail to see that Web 2.0 is anything but a hype. Unless I’ve misunderstood something, there is not that more use in Flickr’s tags, than in that of HTML’s meta-tags. For information to be shared, it has to be much more structured, standardized, and terms (tags) have to be “agreed upon” – it must be possible to unambiguously identify the meaning of information fragments. People might use the same tags for very different things. Due to the nature of the WWW things can easily get very messy. To share and re-use information (large scale) is not possible without using strict languages like RDF and OWL, logics and trust. But yeah, I guess as long as the little things are in fact done well they might be a step towards doing big things better. That’s my 2 cents—after a 5 min. review of “Web 2.0”.