Wikimeta Project’s Evolution Includes Commercial Ambitions and Focus On Text-Mining, Semantic Annotation Robustness by Jennifer Zaino.
From the post:
Wikimeta, the semantic tagging and annotation architecture for incorporating semantic knowledge within documents, websites, content management systems, blogs and applications, this month is incorporating itself as a company called Wikimeta Technologies. Wikimeta, which has a heritage linked with the NLGbAse project, last year was provided as its own web service.
The Semantic Web Blog interviews Dr. Eric Charton about Wikimeta and its future plans.
More interesting that the average interview piece. I have a weakness for academic projects and Wikimeta certainly has the credentials in that regard.
On the other hand, when I read statements like:
So when we said Wikimeta makes over 94 percent of good semantic annotation in the three first ranked suggested annotations, this is tested, evaluated, published, peer-reviewed and reproducible by third parties.
I have to wonder what standard for “…good semantic annotation…” was in play and for what application would 94 percent be acceptable?
Annotation of nuclear power plant documentation? Drug interaction documentation? Jet engine repair manual? Chemical reaction warning on product? None of those sound like 94% right situations.
That isn’t a criticism of this project but of the notion that “correctness” of semantic annotation can be measured separate and apart from some particular use case.
It could be the case that 94% correct is unnecessary if we are talking about the content of Access Hollywood.
And your particular use case may lie somewhere in between those two extremes.
Do read the interview as this sound like it will be an interesting project, whatever your thoughts on “correctness.”