RE: More On the Semantic Web (or: is RDF any good?)

On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, Matt Jensen wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2000, William Loughborough wrote:
> 
> > Any idea why it can't be done this year?
> 
> Well, I was trying to cover myself :-)  I'm imagining that first a group
> of technologists has to "agree" on some kind of standard, and then their
> work has to be adopted by a large enough group of webmasters for the whole
> thing to be "useful".

Too late for that. The web is now a commercial playground, not a
research "sandbox". All website built for commercial organisations and
many others (such http://www.bbc.co.uk/) are governed by people who
are not interested in creating shared space. They just want to keep
you in their ___domain or in the case of portals click through to
controlled set of websites.
 
> However, because the Web is described by Zipf's law [1], you might get
> good value out of convincing "only" the top 100 sites (in page views) to
> implement your semantic system.  Then a form of Metcalfe's law [2]
> applies, where other web sites have more and more reasons to join.
> 
> 
> -Matt Jensen
>  NewsBlip
>  Seattle
> 
> ---
> [1] http://linkage.rockefeller.edu/wli/zipf/
> [2] http://www.mgt.smsu.edu/mgt487/mgtissue/newstrat/metcalfe.htm
> 

Have you proved that the described by Zipf's law? With which
parameters?  Links? Pages? Pageviews?

Gordo.

-- 
Gordon Joly       http://www.pobox.com/~gordo/
gordo@dircon.co.uk       gordon.joly@pobox.com

Received on Tuesday, 7 November 2000 05:49:39 UTC