Hi,
On 14 January 2015 at 20:06, John McClure <jmccl...@hypergrove.com> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
>> I think some kind of survey should be done to see what aspects of the
>> 'semantic web' people are interested in. We all know as a few-year project
>> intended to comprehensively remake the web SW failed, but it has many
>> significant aspects which are important in the long term that SMW
>> purported
>> to support.
>>
> A survey is good. I just started an "SMW Ontologies" thread that I hope
> can get to the heart of the matter, maybe revealing how much interest there
> is seeing SMW be the semantic web knowledge management tool it claims to
> want to be, or whether it's just an easier reporting engine for folks to
> prime & use.
My thought is your outline included too much of your own methodology, which
made it too dense, particularly since it would require many people's
participation.
Technically Halo forked /both/ MW & SMW codebases, never unforking as they
> indicated they'd do
> -- a strategic blunder of great/sad consequence.
> Btw, I explicitly referencd re-using Halo code in the "SMW Ontologies"
> thread I started.
I don't think this is a winning strategy since the code was considered to
be fairly rough and would need considerable updating. It could be used as a
prototype if there were interest. People who saw what SMW+ could do were
impressed, and would be today, it was just clunky to actually use.
Today I would focus on form management tools, and better ways to curate
properties, classes and instances (pages), as well as their relationships.
That's really difficult using triples in SMW unless one is really careful.
I suppose it could be easier with Cargo, given it's based on SQL tables,
but I guess you can't use properties across classes or instances or have
inherent relationships (without really stepping away from how SMW works
today).
When one is careful in organizing content and using conventions, reasonable
content management and visualizations, such as those created by the MITRE
people, can be supported, but in the latter case since they're not part of
SMW I don't think they're widely used, and content management has to be
done manually or through arbitrary scripts.
These are also the kinds of tools that might support less technical users,
and sharing data between sites.
> On the other hand it was unsustainable in relation to
>> main code because of its sometimes rough design as well as its dual open
>> source/commercial nature.
>>
> I see this 'commercial' claim alot, and wonder where it comes from.
> We all (Yaron included!) have a 'commercial' reqt to survive, so I dont
> see the problem.
> The only thing commercial about it was/are the support contracts DIQA
> offers, no harm in that I think.
Nothing at all wrong with commercial support, but I think parts of it were
proprietary, and it had the air of an upsell, which is understandable but
in general the SMW community doesn't really operate in a shrink wrap way.
> I definitely think John overreacted and should apologize.
>>
> I want to be clear that I did express an apology on-list for any mistakes
> I've made explaining my views.
> I privately exchanged emails with Yaron on this too and don't know what
> else y'all want me to do now.
>
>
I'm sorry I missed that but am glad.
David
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Year. New Location. New Benefits. New Data Center in Ashburn, VA.
GigeNET is offering a free month of service with a new server in Ashburn.
Choose from 2 high performing configs, both with 100TB of bandwidth.
Higher redundancy.Lower latency.Increased capacity.Completely compliant.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/gigenet
_______________________________________________
Semediawiki-devel mailing list
Semediawiki-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/semediawiki-devel
