__/ [Guy Macon] on Thursday 27 October 2005 01:26 \__
> John Bokma wrote:
>>Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>> The semantic Web could mean trouble to Google,
>>> which is very keyword-or index-oriented.
>>Huh? Google already use semantics to score pages.
You're right. I imagine that they will constantly adapt to exploit any bit of
extra information once it is made available (embedded) in pages.
> We all kbow that a search engine that exists only as a proposal
> on a web page is always superior to one that exists as working
> code that made the authors into billionares...
Guy, you're completely misinterpreting my intents. If you look at the source
of the page, you'll see some bits commented out. I don't know if anything
will ever take off the ground. I am exploring and considering further
possibilities for occupying myself.
> Seriously though, I wish him well, but I have seen many, many
> plans for software that can understand semantics over the years,
> and they always end up looking like Japan's Fifth Generation
> project on paper and looking like Microsoft Bob when the actual
> code has been written.
I appreciate the pointers. These were interesting pages to read through.
> On the other hand, *someone* has to be the first to solve the
> problem, so who is to say that that someone isn't our Roy?
I doubt anyone but a large company can ever dominate a large-scale thing like
this. I can only assure you that search engines are not intelligent and
sometimes in the future this will change. Google Print, which is now
followed by Microsoft's desire to scan books too, comes to show you the lust
for peer review, high-quality literature.