Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
----- Original Message ----- From: David Megginson <david@m...> > courseware; as a medievalist, however, I had had it drilled into me > that low-quality/high-volume *always* wins (i.e. crowded school and > chancery scripts over elegant monastic scripts, paper over parchment, > printing over calligraphy, American culture over ... oops, sorry), Yes. 'Worse is better' always wins. That's why for searching and ranking - <meta> and markup should be slaves of Google / screen scrapping, but not the other way. <meta> is for "high quality search" . he-he. My experience shows me that even I like the idea of XSA, it is becomes too hard for me to maintain even tiny xsa.xml... No talking about writing some RDF/ Topic maps or something. Should I write those huge RDF / Topic maps constructions by hand ? I'm too lasy for that. Do I understand right that The Semantic Web will provide me with the quality of search better than Google provides, but in return I should spend more time maintaining my documents ? If this is the only sound advantage of Semantic Web - I think it is obvious that your pattern could be applied here. Google / screen-scrapping is 'worse is better'. It is 'low-quality/high-volume'. Following your rule - Google should win. Rgds.Paul. PS. If SW is a layer on *top* of searching layer - that could be interesting, but I don't understand how 'ontology', Topic Maps , RDF, Namespaces, URIs and other nice things could be layered on top of Google / screen-scrapping.
|
