Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> the semantic web for beginners
t byfield on Sat, 27 Dec 2003 20:52:31 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> the semantic web for beginners

or: M*ke M*ney F*st as a part-time ontological envelope-stuffer!

even boiled down to plain-vanilla ascii, this is *the* best discussion 
i've seen about the chimerical 'semantic web.' i'm sending this version
to nettime as a sort of nostalgic doff of the hat to 'collaborative
text filtering' (which doesn't seem to be doing very well these days,
at least not in this neighborhood), but don't miss the page itself:

     < http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/ >

as is typical of self-styled 'social software' blogosophers, the sub-
stance of the discussion feels a bit like the patter of rain upon the
Disciplinary Oceans (which is fine, if only they'd admit it). starting
with their categorical mistake of insisting that this is 'ontology' and
NOT epistemology, which very rarely gets mentioned in this context. (a 
quick empirical dip: googling 'semantic web' with 'ontology' yields 
58000+ hits, but with 'epistemology'? 800+.). it is and it isn't; but
the line separating the two realms of inquiry was never so clear -- 
and certainly shouldn't be taken for granted in this contect, given
the substance of the debate.

this tendency to glom on to ontology is partly attributable to the 
curious, uh, semantic swerve that 'ontology' took when computer-types 
got their hands on it. the easiest way to make this point is by ex-
ample, say, that of yahoo's jerry yang in a '96 issue of WiReD:

     In 1996, [Yahoo's first "ontologist" 'Ninj' Srinivasan] was
     adding categories and making changes to the ontology almost
     every day. Now major adjustments are becoming much more in-
     frequent. She pointed to this as support for Yang's assertion 
->   that "at some point, our scheme will become relatively stable. 
->   We will have captured the breadth of human knowledge."

          -- http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.05/indexweb_pr.html

'hello, world!'

but only partly attributable: because of course the practitioners who
kept their hands firmly on the semantic steering wheel through the 
decade during which that swerve was 'locked in' were very much about 
making all that is solid melt into bits and, in the process, making 
millions -- in other words, making all that is solid melt into their 
pockets (sound familiar?). so it's not like all this blabla about 'on-
tology' was only and unquestionably received wisdom; or even to the 
extent that it was, wasn't there some talk about a 'revolution' that'd 
chase out all the old computational ways and bring in the new? goodbye 
epistemology, hello ontology -- just without the hassle. inquiries 
beyond mere representation were the tprgic lot of all those goofy left-
ists sniping at WiReD. but Real Men did windows -- *only* windows:

*  From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (09 FEB 02) [foldoc]:
*    ontology
*       1. <philosophy> A systematic account of Existence.

even in this impoverished definition, they make oblique reference 
to all that Actual Stuff. but let us move on:

*       2. <artificial intelligence> (From philosophy) An explicit
*       formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts
*       and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of
*       interest and the relationships that hold among them.
*       For {AI} systems, what "exists" is that which can be
*       represented.  When the {knowledge} about a {domain} is
*       represented in a {declarative language}, the set of objects
*       that can be represented is called the {universe of discourse}.
*       We can describe the ontology of a program by defining a set of
*       representational terms.  Definitions associate the names of
*       entities in the {universe of discourse} (e.g. classes,
*       relations, functions or other objects) with human-readable
*       text describing what the names mean, and formal {axioms} that
*       constrain the interpretation and well-formed use of these
*       terms.  Formally, an ontology is the statement of a {logical
*       theory}.
*       A set of {agents} that share the same ontology will be able to
*       communicate about a domain of discourse without necessarily
*       operating on a globally shared theory.  We say that an agent
*       commits to an ontology if its observable actions are
*       consistent with the definitions in the ontology.  The idea of
*       ontological commitment is based on the {Knowledge-Level}
*       perspective.
*       3. <information science> The hierarchical structuring of
*       knowledge about things by subcategorising them according to
*       their essential (or at least relevant and/or cognitive)
*       qualities.  See {subject index}.  This is an extension of the
*       previous senses of "ontology" (above) which has become common
*       in discussions about the difficulty of maintaining {subject
*       indices}.
*       (1997-04-09)

so if you like philosophical slapstick, here you go: the very fine text 
of an excellent 'graphic novel' depicting a bunch of bloggers debating 
the hows and whys of 'how' -- a processual how -- to make groundless 
knowledge fungible. or, alternatively, if you're interested in getting 
a handle on this 'semantic web' stuff, here's a primer that explains 
*why* you won't be able to: platonism is alive and well, and its objects 
are just as elusive. at least, that seems to be the de facto consensus 
in the absence of any clear and distinct consensus. :)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

                  Themes and metaphors in the semantic web discussion.

        November 15, 2003, [1]Peter Van Dijck. November 22 note: I had some
        versioning problems, and the article may now have a few slight
        differences with the November 15 version that are not indicated.

        In this article, I am trying to identify some of the themes and
        metaphors used in discussions about the semantic web. [2]Comments

        Last week Clay Shirkey posted an essay called [3]The Semantic Web,
        Syllogism, and Worldview, which generated a lot of responses on
        various websites. The essay asked the question: "What is the semantic
        web good for?". It echoes a feeling shared by many people, and
        expressed by JayT in the comments [4]here:

          If the Semantic Web was anywhere even close to half-as-good as the
          claims that are being made for it, it would ALREADY have gained
          massive widespread acceptance. Meaning VAST implementation.

   I printed out many of the discussions. While reading all this (using
   my trusty yellow highlighter), some recurring metaphors and themes

     * [5]What Is It
     * [6]Top Down Bottom Up
     * [7]Ontology Of Everything
     * [8]The Simple Life
     * [9]It Is Growing
     * [10]RDF Versus XML
     * [11]Real World Value
     * [12]Here Today
     * [13]Useful While We Are Get There
     * [14]Clay Misunderstands Syllogisms
     * [15]Doer Versus Talker

   My apologies in advance for being simplistic in this write-up -
   despite having developed [16]a language that has some semantics in it,
   I am far from an expert on the semantic web.

   Before we start, a few points about this writeup:

     * Any tips for improving the semantics of the HTML of this article
       are appreciated.
     * If I misquoted someone, or got a picture wrong (not everyone had a
       FOAF file), please let me know. I don't have an editor.
     * If you know where I can find a picture of [DEL: Joe Gregorio :DEL]
       , [17]JayT, [DEL: Dare Obasanjo :DEL] or [DEL: Tom Hoffman :DEL] ,
       let me know.

   I'll be quoting lots of people - here's the cast:

                [pictures of everyone quoted in this article]

   Now let's get started.

  [18]What Is It?

   A starting theme of this discussion (and many others) is What Is It.
   (The different themes are bolded and capitalized.)

   The semantic web is an idea promoted by [19]Tim Berners Lee, a vision.
   But many people are confused about what exactly that idea is. A good
   thing about discussions like this is that many people try to define
   what the semantic web really is. Definitions go from the technical to
   the poetic:

   Paul Ford [20]states it technically:

     The Semantic Web is a framework that rigidly defines a means for
     creating statements of the form "Subject, Predicate, Object" or
     "triples," in a machine-readable format, where each of Subject,
     Predicate, Object is a URI.

   Shelley Powers [21]is more poetic:

     My idea of semantic web is if I can look for a poem that uses a
     metaphor of bird as freedom, and get back poems that have bird as
     metaphor for freedom.

  [22]Top Down Bottom Up.

   Once people start discussing what the semantic web is, two seemingly
   opposite visions of the semantic web emerge. We'll call them the
   "top-down" and the "bottom-up" semantic web. The theme is called Top
   Down Bottom Up. This theme is politically and emotionally loaded, and
   causes much misunderstanding.

   Someone should do a serious linguistic analysis of all this, but

   The top-down semantic web is discussed in terms of:

     * capital S Semantic Web.
     * the grand vision
     * all encompassing
     * global ontology
     * artificial
     * "the new world order of authoritarian classification systems"

   The bottom-up semantic web is discussed in terms of:

     * bottom up
     * already here
     * small victories
     * real
     * useful today

   Shirky, in his essay, says the proponents of the semantic web have a
   top-down view of the semantic web. This top down approach consists of
   two parts.

   According to Shirky, proponents of the semantic web want to make
   people use RDF (a building block of the semantic web). This is mostly
   true: the semantic web people want you to use RDF to share your
   semantic data, but they realize lots of semantic data is and will be
   shared in other forms - see [23]RDF Versus XML.

   By the way, the way the RDF Versus XML discussion is seen as an
   extension of the Top Down Bottom Up discussion is misguided. People
   seem to think XML is bottom-up, and RDF is top-down. But as Danny
   Ayers rightly [24]points out, XML is a top down technology:

     Shirky's last words are "... the big advantage of this bottom-up
     design and adoption is that it is actually working now." How much
     of that bottom-up design and adoption features XML, a spec that for
     most people is handed down from above?

   The second part of the top down approach, according to Shirky, is that
   semantic web people want to create top-down ontologies. Shirky really
   misses the ball here - most proponents of the semantic web don't
   believe in a global ontology. See [25]Ontology Of Everything.

   So in short, Top Down Versus Bottom Up is not really a valid
   discussion in terms of RDF Versus XML. In terms of Ontology Of
   Everything, it is just a plain misunderstanding of what the proponents
   of the semantic web propose.

   One reason why people get confused in this Top Down Bottom Up argument
   is that it is a theme with emotional and political undertones. Shelley
   Powers [26]captures the feelings of many people who believe in
   bottom-up. Notice the political and emotional undertones in this

     Tim [referring to Tim [DEL: Berners Lee :DEL] Bray], man, you got
     to get down, son. Scrabble in the hard pack with the rest of us
     plain folk. Yank off that tie, and put on some Bermudas and hang
     with the hometown gang for a bit. You been with the Big Bad
     Business Asses too much -- you forgot your roots.

  [27]Ontology Of Everything.

   As part of the Top Down Bottom Up theme, many people (starting with
   Shirky) seem to think the semantic web people are trying to promote an
   ontology of everything.

   Clay Shirky [28]writes:

     [About XML] With such a foundation, making formal agreements about
     the nature of whatever was being described -- an ontology -- seemed
     a logical next step.

   So Shirky seems to be saying that semantic web relies on top-down

   Not so. 

   The proponents of the semantic web are well aware that building a
   top-down ontology or taxonomy that works for everybody and tries to
   describe everything won't work.

   Shelley Powers [29]writes:

     There never was a suggestion that all metadata work cease and
     desist as we sit down on some mountaintop somewhere and fully
     derive the model before allowing the world to proceed.

   Dan Brickley [30]writes:

     One point I was particularly puzzled by [...] was your apparent
     impression that we're working towards a single, global, monolithic

   Danny Ayers [31]says:

     Another tiresome premise is that Semantic Web somehow involves a
     global ontology. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Semantic
     Web technologies (RDF, OWL) allow you to define ontologies which
     can be entirely local. If there are parts you can share or map,
     great, if not, no big deal.

   Alex Wright [32]writes:

     RDF's primary reason for being is to let local communities of
     interest create their own ontologies - not to enforce some
     nefarious New World Order of authoritarian classification systems.

   Dan Brickley [33]explains a bit further why the semantic web doesn't
   propose a top-down ontology:

     Unlike vanilla XML, RDF vocabularies can be freely mixed together
     in data without prior agreement. So you often see ad-hoc
     combinations of Dublin Core, RSS1, MusicBrainz, RDF-calendar, FOAF,
     Wordnet, thesaurus, Geo-info etc etc frequently deployed together,
     despite the fact that the creators of those various vocabularies
     barely knew each other.

     This strikes me as the height of loosly-coupled pragmatism rather
     than a wide-eyed effort to build a monolithic universal category

   I think that suffices to debunk the idea that the semantic web is
   about an ontology of everything.

  [34]The Simple Life.

   A theme related to the Top Down Bottom Up theme is The Simple Life. In
   The Simple Life, valuable things happen small scale, and grow
   organically. Little improvements are valuable. I think The Simple Life
   is an underlying theme that doesn't often get stated explicitly, but
   influences many of the discussions of the semantic web.

   Echoes of the Simple Life theme are found throughout these
   discussions. Clay Shirky [35]writes:

     In an echo of Richard Gabriel's [36]Worse is Better argumment, the
     Semantic Web imagines that completeness and correctness of data
     exposed on the web are the cardinal virtues, and that any amount of
     implementation complexity is acceptable in pursuit of those

   The argument seems to be that simplicity works, whereas the semantic
   web tries to impose too much complexity.

   Shelley Powers [37]writes about simplicity as well:

     I'll let you in on a little secret: my semantic web is not The
     Semantic Web. They won't give nobel prizes for it, and it won't be
     a deafening flash or a blinding roar. It will just make my life a
     bit easier than what what it is now.

     Some folks who like the Semantic Web won't necessarily like or
     agree with my simple, little small 's', semantic, small 'w' web.

  [38]It Is Growing.

   The Simple Life, with it's connotations of farming, gardening, has a
   related theme called It Is Growing. This theme says that the semantic
   web is growing already, and all we need to do is take care of it, like
   a garden.

   In Shirky's essay, his [39]conclusion is exactly this:

     Much of the proposed value of the Semantic Web is coming, but it is
     not coming because of the Semantic Web. The amount of meta-data we
     generate is increasing dramatically, and it is being exposed for
     consumption by machines as well as, or instead of, people.

     But it is being designed a bit at a time, out of self-interest and
     without regard for global ontology. It is also being adopted
     piecemeal, and it will bring with it with all the incompatibilities
     and complexities that implies.

   Shiry seems to think this is opposite to what the semantic web people
   are proposing. He makes the same mistake as in the Ontology Of
   Everything theme. Most proponents of the Semantic Web seem to agree
   with him on this.

   Shelley Powers [40]writes:

     I also agree, conditionally, with Clay when he concludes [this].

     But Clay's reasoning is flawed if he believes that this isn't the
     vision shared by those of us who work towards the Semantic Web.

   Steve Cayzer [41]writes:

     [about Its Growing] That sounds to me a lot like the vision being
     pushed by members of W3C that I talk to.

  [42]RDF Versus XML.

   A sub-theme of Top Down Bottom Up is RDF Versus XML. In semantic web
   discussions, people often end up talking about RDF and XML, and which
   one is better. This, again, is an emotionally and politically loaded

   Most people agree that RDF is kind of complex. Many people think it's
   not useful to use something so complex when they can do the same thing
   in simple XML without worrying about RDF. RDF is seen by some as an
   overly complex technology, trying to solve a problem XML and HTTP
   already solve.

   Paul Ford [43]writes:

     [The essay claims that] the Semantic Web is a technological pipe
     dream: an over-specified solution in search of a problem.

   And Joe Gregorio [44]says:

     This is exactly the point I made in [45]The Well-Formed Web, that
     the value that the proponents of the Semantic Web were offering
     could be achieved just as well with just XML and HTTP, and we are
     doing it today with no use of RDF, no need to wait for ubiquitous
     RDF deployment, no need to wait for RDF parsing and querying tools.

   Dare Obasanjo [46]sees it like this:

     The difference between the RDF proponents and the XML proponents is
     fairly simple. In the XML-centric world parties can utilize
     whatever internal formats and data sources they want but exchange
     XML documents that conform to an agreed upon format, in cases where
     the agreed upon format conflicts with internal formats then
     technologies like XSLT come to the rescue.

     The RDF position is that it is too difficult to agree on
     interchange formats so instead of going down this route we should
     use A.I.-like technologies to map between formats. [...]

     Thus, if you are an XML practitioner RDF doesn't change much except
     new transformation techniques and technologies to learn.

   Shelley Powers, disagrees. Commenting on Dare's comment above, she

     Dare is saying that we don't need RDF because we can use transforms
     between different data models; that way everyone can use their own
     XML vocabulary.

     This sounds good in principle, but from previous experience I've
     had with this type of effort in the past, this is not as trivial as
     it sounds. By not using an agreed on model, not only do you now
     have to sit down and work out an agreement as to differences in
     data, you also have to work out the differences in the data model,

     In other words -- you either pay upfront, once; or you keep paying
     in the end, again and again. [...]

     However, don't let me stop you from using XML and your own home
     grown data model and rules and regs. But we won't let this stop us
     from using RDF and RDF/XML.

     The point I'm trying to make is this: the semantic web is here. It
     snuck in quietly while the rest of us were debating. It is viral,
     slowly putting out little tendrils of applicability throughout the
     web. The only problem we're really having is that we're not
     recognizing it now because no huge rocket burst into the air going
     "Semantic Web is here! Semantic Web is here!"

  [48]Real World Value.

   Another recurring theme is Real World Value. The key word here is
   real. Real World Value says the semantic web is useful for real
   problems, opposing the idea that the semantic web is a solution
   looking for a problem.

   Paul Ford, for example, [49]writes:

     I believe that there is much of value in the Semantic Web framework
     which can be applied to real-world problems.

  [50]Here Today.

   Most people seem to agree that the semantic web is Here Today. The
   Semantic Web is already being built, and slowly becoming useful. This
   theme is often combined with Real World Value.

   Marc Canter [51]writes:

     The technologies that surround the Semantic web [...] are here
     today, while the dream of the semantic web is still years away.

   Alex Wright [52]puts it this way:

     [...] the many smaller victories already taking place, like the
     real, tangible impact of RDF, RSS, and Web services. Though
     certainly it's a long way from the Alexandrian fantasies of its
     more breathless boosters, the foundations of the Semantic Web are
     already taking shape.

   He [53]continues:

     Shirky nonetheless bases his argument on a central fallacy: the
     Semantic Web as monolith, as a single "thing" to be opposed or

     The Semantic Web is not an all-or-nothing proposition; it is a
     rubric describing a set of distinct (though related) technologies -
     RDF, FOAF, OWL, RSS, XML - all of which are designed to improve
     machine-to-machine communication [...].

     And those technologies, like it or not, are already here.

   Danny Ayers [54]writes:

     This isn't an either-or situation. There are systems based on
     Semantic Web technologies working now. The web is working now.

   Alex Wright [55]quotes this [56]PDF:

     "It may be that - at least in the short term - that there are many
     semantic webs rather than The Semantic Web; they may - even in the
     long term - take us where we need to go."

   Shelley [57]combines Ontology Of Everything and Here Today and expands
   It Is Growing to It Is Being Uncovered (one of many themes not
   discussed in this article).

     To the Semantic Web people there is no issue about building a
     global ontology -- it already exists on the web today. Bit by bit
     of it is uncovered every time we implement yet another component of
     the model using a common, shared semantic model and language.

  [58]Useful While We Are Getting There.

   The Here Today theme is often extended to include Useful While We Are
   Getting There. This theme says that even though we haven't reached a
   point yet where a lot of information is available in RDF, the semantic
   web is already useful.

   Steve Cayzer [59]writes:

     Many RDF apps get by perfectly well without any fancy inference
     rule machinery, exploiting the RDF data model as a handy mechanism
     for mixing independently created data vocabularies.

   Danny Ayers [60]agrees:

     Semantic Web technologies can solve immediate problems in effective
     ways. You don't need the Semantic Web to find that RDF is a very
     useful tool for representing web-like, partially structured data.

     The Semantic Web is a vision, it may even be a pipe dream (hey
     Clay, you missed a cliche!), but the technologies in that pipe
     dream are solving real-world problems today.

   Tom Hoffman [61]states it more strongly:

     What bothers me about Shirky's essay is that the building blocks of
     the Semantic Web are useful even if we never achieve nirvana.

  [62]Clay Misunderstands Syllogisms.

   In the essay, Shirkey says that the semantic web won't work because it
   uses syllogisms: statements about something that can be used to deduce
   certain things (like: Peter is a Belgian. Peter wrote this article.
   Therefore, this article was written by a Belgian).

   Clay Shirky [63]writes:

     The Semantic Web is a machine for creating syllogisms. [...]
     Syllogisms are Not Very Useful.

   Other people refute Shirkey's statement that syllogisms don't work.
   Paul Ford [64]writes:

     But logical reasoning does work well in the real world - it's just
     not identified as such, because it often appears in mundane places,
     like library card catalogs and book indices [...].

   Relational databases are used as an example to refute Shirky's point.
   They also depend on statements about the world, and they have proven
   themselves to be useful.

   Dan Brickley [65]says:

   The Semantic Web project, viewed as an effort to make it easier to
   publish, mix, share and consume data on the Web, depends on logic in
   pretty much the same way SQL or UML depend on logic.

   Danny Ayers [66]agrees:

     Exactly the same logical arguments can be made just as well against
     relational databases. And look how useless they are...

  [67]Doer Versus Talker.

   The final theme that jumped out for me is Doer Versus Talker. It
   basicaly says: "put up or shut up". It's not much of an argument,
   really, but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

   Paul Ford [68]writes:

     Quite a bit of work has been done on trust metrics, semantic
     disambiguation, ontology exchange, triple storage, and query
     semantics. Some of it is doubtlessly going down the wrong path, but
     some is equally likely to prove worthwhile.

     [...] By sneering at a few researchers, Shirky maligns the patient,
     methodical work of hundreds of others.

   Marc Canter [69]writes:

     But this is where we divide up the world between doers and talkers.
     Danny Ayers, Dan Brickley and LOTS of others are doing what it
     takes to BUILD the semantic web. Poo pooing it and saying it can't
     be done doesn't help anything.

   Comments on this article can be posted [70]here.


   1. http://petervandijck.net/
   2. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/002335.html
   3. http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html
   4. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#realworldvalue
   5. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#whatisit
   6. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#topdownbottomup
   7. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#ontologyofeverything
   8. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#thesimplelife
   9. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#itisgrowing
  10. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#rdfversusxml
  11. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#realworldvalue
  12. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#heretoday
  13. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#usefulwhilewearegettingthere
  14. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#claymisunderstandssyllogisms
  15. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#doerversustalker
  16. http://xfml.org/
  17. http://www.hyperorg.com/blogger/mtarchive/002172.html
  18. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#whatisit
  19. http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/
  20. http://www.ftrain.com/ContraShirky.html
  21. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002040.htm
  22. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#topdownbottomup
  23. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#rdfversusxml
  24. http://dannyayers.com/archives/002017.html
  25. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#ontologyofeverything
  26. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002040.htm
  27. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#ontologyofeverything
  28. http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html
  29. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002007.htm
  30. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Nov/0010.html
  31. http://dannyayers.com/archives/002017.html
  32. http://www.agwright.com/blog/archives/000787.html
  33. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Nov/0010.html
  34. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#thesimplelife
  35. http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html
  36. http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
  37. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002040.htm
  38. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#itisgrowing
  39. http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html
  40. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002007.htm
  41. http://jena.hpl.hp.com:3030/blojsom-hp/blog/technologies/semweb/?permalink=A324DB4E341E5CD2F166DF5B773F1CC1.textile&smm=y
  42. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#rdfversusxml
  43. http://www.ftrain.com/ContraShirky.html
  44. http://bitworking.org/news/Skirky_on_the_Semantic_Web
  45. http://bitworking.org/news/WellFormedWeb
  46. http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/CommentView.aspx?guid=1eaabc62-b9f7-4ef2-b980-da29b6015dd5
  47. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002040.htm
  48. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#realworldvalue
  49. http://www.ftrain.com/ContraShirky.html
  50. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#heretoday
  51. http://blogs.it/0100198/2003/11/08.html#a1964:
  52. http://www.agwright.com/blog/archives/000787.html
  53. http://www.agwright.com/blog/archives/000787.html
  54. http://dannyayers.com/archives/002017.html
  55. http://www.agwright.com/blog/archives/000787.html
  56. http://www.ht03.org/papers/pdfs/7.pdf
  57. http://weblog.burningbird.net/fires/002007.htm
  58. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#usefulwhilewearegettingthere
  59. http://jena.hpl.hp.com:3030/blojsom-hp/blog/technologies/semweb/?permalink=A324DB4E341E5CD2F166DF5B773F1CC1.textile&smm=y
  60. http://dannyayers.com/archives/002017.html
  61. http://stone.tuttlesvc.org:880/2003_11_09.html#000371
  62. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#claymisunderstandssyllogisms
  63. http://www.shirky.com/writings/semantic_syllogism.html
  64. http://www.ftrain.com/ContraShirky.html
  65. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Nov/0010.html
  66. http://dannyayers.com/archives/002017.html
  67. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/semantic/#doerversustalker
  68. http://www.ftrain.com/ContraShirky.html
  69. http://blogs.it/0100198/2003/11/08.html#a1964:
  70. http://poorbuthappy.com/ease/archives/002335.html

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net