Sam Hunting suggested that I add indexes to the Simple Web Semantics posts to facilitate navigating from one to the other.
It occurred to me that having a single index page could also be useful.
The series began with:
- The Semantic Web Is Failing — But Why? (Part 1)
- The Semantic Web Is Failing — But Why? (Part 2)
- The Semantic Web Is Failing — But Why? (Part 3)
- The Semantic Web Is Failing — But Why? (Part 4)
- The Semantic Web Is Failing — But Why? (Part 5)
Reasoning why something isn’t working is important to know before proposing a solution.
- Saving the “Semantic” Web (part 1)
- Saving the “Semantic” Web (part 2) [NOTLogic]
- Saving the “Semantic” Web (part 3)
- Saving the “Semantic” Web (part 4)
- Saving the “Semantic” Web (part 5) (Where I introduce the term “Simple Web Semantics” and sketch a rough outline of a solution.)
I have gotten good editorial feedback on the proposal and will be posting a revision in the next couple of days.
Nothing substantially different but clearer and more precise.
If you have any comments or suggestions, please make them at your earliest convenience.
I am always open to comments but the sooner they arrive the sooner I can make improvements.
[…] My first encounter with this proposal so I need to compare it to my Simple Web Semantics. […]
Pingback by Open Annotation Data Model « Another Word For It — March 19, 2013 @ 10:34 am
[…] my misgivings about RDF (Simple Web Semantics), if you want to investigate RDF and SPARQL, Dydra would be a good way to get your feet […]
Pingback by Dydra « Another Word For It — March 26, 2013 @ 10:55 am
[…] As its uptake is evidence of the interest in someone else’s semantics. (Simple Web Semantics – The Semantic Web Is Failing — But Why?) […]
Pingback by Semantics for Big Data [W3C late to semantic heterogeneity party] « Another Word For It — March 31, 2013 @ 12:50 pm