+1! Well said, Karen.
I would add (to further abuse your metaphor) that it’s also possible to make a delicious dish with simple ingredients. With minimal knowledge, most non-computer science-y folks can cook up some structured data in RDF, maybe encoded in RDFa and deliver it on the same HTML pages they are already presenting to the public, and add a surprising large amount of value to the information they publish.
I do completely agree that there’s some intellectual work necessary to do this effectively but the same is certainly true about metadata creation. In fact, I would say that those with library backgrounds are well suited to shape and present knowledge for machine processing.
Finally, the same principles of publishing information on the human-readable Web apply to the structured data Web. Anyone can say anything about anything, it’s just up to us to figure out whether that information is meaningful or accurate. The more we build trusted sources by publishing and shaping that information with standards, best practices, and transparency, the more effective the future Web will be.
On Nov 4, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Karen Coyle <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Eric, I really don't see how RDF or linked data is any more difficult to grasp than a database design -- and database design is a tool used by developers to create information systems for people who will never have to think about database design. Imagine the rigor that goes into the creation of the app "Angry Birds" and imagine how many users are even aware of the calculation of trajectories, speed, and the inter-relations between things on the screen that will fall or explode or whatever.
> A master chef understands the chemistry of his famous dessert - the rest of us just eat and enjoy.
> On 11/4/13 6:40 AM, Eric Lease Morgan wrote:
>> I am of two minds when it comes to Linked Data and the Semantic Web.
>> Libraries and many other professions have been encoding things for a long time, but encoding the description of a book (MARC) or marking up texts (TEI), is not the same as encoding knowledge — a goal of the Semantic Web. The former is a process of enhancing — the adding of metadata — to an existing object. The later is a process of making assertions of truth. And in the case of the former, look at all the variations of describing a book, and think of all the different ways a person can mark up a text. We can’t agree.
>> In general, people do not think very systematically nor very logically. We are humans full of ambiguity, feelings, and perceptions. We are more animal than we are computer. We are more heart than we are mind. We are more like Leonard McCoy and less like Spock. Listen to people talk. Quite frequently we do not speak in complete sentences, and complete “sentences” are at the heart of the Linked Data and the Semantic Web. Think how much we rely on body language to convey ideas. If we — as a whole — have this difficulty, then how can we expect to capture and encode data, information, and knowledge with the rigor that a computer requires, no matter how many front-ends and layers are inserted between us and the triples?
>> Don’t get me wrong. I am of two minds when it comes to Linked Data and the Semantic Web. On one hand I believe the technology (think triples) is a descent fit and reasonable way to represent data, information, and knowledge. Heck I’m writing a book on the subject with examples of how to accomplish this goal. I am sincerely not threatened by this technology, nor do any of the RDF serializations get in my way. On the other hand, I just as sincerely wonder if the majority of people can manifest the rigor required by truly stupid and unforgiving computers to articulate knowledge.
>> Eric “Spoken Like A Humanist And Less Like A Computer Scientist” Morgan
>> University of Notre Dame
> Karen Coyle
> [log in to unmask] http://kcoyle.net
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet