Elaine,
My view: the title of the article is hyped-nonsense, and the content of the article is incoherent. The author says the semantic web is dead because HTML5 will bring about the semantic web without using RDF. Had the author titled the piece sensibly--"HTML5 offers an easier route to semantic web than RDF"--and kept to that theme that HTML5 and not RDF will be the basis of the semantic web in the article, then I wouldn't bash him. That is a reasonable claim to make, and he makes this claim, but he disguises that sensible claim by shouting that the semantic web is dead. Discarding the junk from his article, one can come away thinking that HTML5 will help make the web semantic faster. That's the opposite of what he is claiming in his title.
Matthew Beacom
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of Sanchez, Elaine R
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 12:36 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: [NGC4LIB] Death of Semantic Web - is it so, and how does it affect Cataloging on the Semantic web
Hello,
Does anyone on this list have an idea on what the following article means, if anything, for Cataloging on the Semantic Web, use of RDA, necessity of the granularity of bibliographic data, the future of transition from MARC to something else, difference between XML and RDF and does this affect our current projected plans? It seems to indicate that the Semantic web is dead.
I don't usually post on this list because it is almost always above my head, but I thought this would be a good place to ask these questions. I could try Autocat, but I thought this would be a more applicable list.
Anyway, the full article is here:
http://www.semantico.com/2011/09/triple-bypass-what-does-the-death-of-the-semantic-web-mean-for-publishers/
Abstract:
Triple Bypass - What Does the Death of the Semantic Web Mean for Publishers?
The Discover Blog, September 20, 2011; by Richard Padley
The announcement by Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft of schema.org ostensibly marks the end of the semantic web (Web 3.0). Schema.org focuses on "rich snippets" to add semantic meaning to web content and to have it structurally recognized by search engines. Rather than using the rich RDFa of the Semantic Web, schema.org bases rich snippets on HTML5. Although the use of RDF and triples has been touted for over a decade, it has yet to have any significant practical implementations (other than niche areas like taxonomy). Search has the most to gain from semantics and the search companies have clearly bypassed RDF. Publishers still need to understand that semantics are important as is well-designed XML content. But it also means you can step away from RDF, triples, OWL, and related semantic technology. XML workflows are where you need to focus your delivery to participate in the schema.org search world.
Thanks,
Elaine Sanchez
Texas State University-San Marcos
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of NGC4LIB automatic digest system
Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 10:00 PM
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: NGC4LIB Digest - 9 Oct 2011 to 10 Oct 2011 (#2011-174)
There is 1 message totalling 91 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Technology advances
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2011 12:54:29 +0100
From: Ken Chad <ken_at_KENCHADCONSULTING.COM>
Subject: Re: Technology advances
I get some feelings of déjà vue as enterprises like Amazon look to reinvent the old notion of the commercial circulating library --but based on (digital
content) ebooks. The 'Library' (it had the word in big letters on the shop
front) in my home town High Street was a commercial circulating library . It was a kind of 'one-stop-shop'. It had a lending library at the back and also sold all kinds of other goods. The public library with its crazy and radical social market based business model put it out of business in the 1960s.
I've been doing some really interesting work on strategy with some great librarians in public and academic libraries. It's been related to reviewing and re-aligning their library technology infrastructure (ILS, Archives, Repository etc). I think it's a good time for libraries to look again and think hard strategically. Very often what looks like a strategy is really a 'mission' or a strategic 'goal' (or set of goals) without any clear sense ('guiding principle' is the phrase used by Richard Rumelt in 'Good Strategy, Bad Strategy') of how that it be achieved using the library's key 'capabilities'. Of course this isn't a problem unique to libraries...far from it. But we do face a particular combination of budget cuts and disruptive and highly competitive technologies and services. So taking a hard look at strategy now seems to me to be worthwhile. I recently spoke at a couple of library events on this theme http://www.kenchadconsulting.com/conferences/
Ken
Ken Chad Consulting Ltd
Tel +44 (0)7788 727 845. Email: ken_at_kenchadconsulting.com www.kenchadconsulting.com
Skype: kenchadconsulting Twitter: @KenChad
Open Library Systems Specifications: http://libtechrfp.wikispaces.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Next generation catalogs for libraries [mailto:NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU] On Behalf Of James Weinheimer
Sent: 29 September 2011 18:49
To: NGC4LIB_at_LISTSERV.ND.EDU
Subject: Re: [NGC4LIB] Technology advances
On 28/09/2011 22:00, Joe Hourcle wrote:
<snip>
And a lot of it's not in books (or journals, or other bibliographic materials), and never will be.
... but it still needs to be collected, cataloged, preserved, etc.
All of the skills of a librarian apply, it's just on something other than books.
As for the library as an organization, you still need a place to store the collected stuff. (and for the stuff I deal with, I still feel I'm closer to a librarian than an archivist, so I can't say that place is an archive, even if that's what most people call us) </snip>
As the library's holdings become more virtual, it seems to follow logically that the library itself will become more virtual as well. If the "library-as-a-place" continues to exist, it will probably become more of a locality for people to meet, e.g. group and town meetings, perhaps also as an restful sanctuary for personal reflection; naturally it will be a place to get a decent cup of coffee.
But the idea of the library as a physical place to find information (the
collection) and where I can find the answers to my questions (reference) is disappearing even now. It's amazing how quickly this has changed!
Nevertheless, I do not believe that materials can either organize themselves or that a mathematical formula can do it, no matter if just looking at that formula will make your hair stand on end and leave you speechless for a couple of days! Relying on a tool to determine something as vague as "relevance"--a tool that can be manipulated in all kinds of extremely clever ways to serve the purpose of either the greed or propaganda of unknown people (read "search engine optimization"), is really a frightening prospect.
If librarians play it right, there will be plenty of need for their skills and ethics. But I don't know--it is a very difficult time for everyone.
--
James Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l@gmail.com First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules:
http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
------------------------------
End of NGC4LIB Digest - 9 Oct 2011 to 10 Oct 2011 (#2011-174)
*************************************************************
Received on Wed Oct 12 2011 - 14:20:01 EDT