I was talking to Sam Hunting the other day about identifying subjects in texts. Since we were talking about HTML pages, the use of an <a> element to surround PCDATA seems like a logical choice. Simple, easy, something users are accustomed to doing.
Sam mentioned that is cleaner than RDFa or any of its kin, which require additional effort, a good bit of additional effort, on the part of users. Which made me wonder why the extra effort? If a user has identified a subject, using an IRI, what more is necessary?
After all, if you identify a subject for me, you don’t have to push a lot of information along with the identification. If I want more information, in addition to the information I already have, that’s my responsibility to obtain it.
The scenario where you as a user contribute semantics, to the benefit of others, is a semantic division of labor.
What is really ironic, is you have to create the ontologies, invoke them in the correct way and then use a special syntax that works with their machines, to contribute your knowledge and/or identification of subjects. Not only do you get a beating, but you have to bring your own stick.
It isn’t hard to imagine a different division of labor. One where users identify their subjects using simple <a> elements and Wikipedia or other sources that seem useful to them. I am sure the chemistry folks have sources they would prefer as do other areas of activity.
If someone else wants to impose semantics on the identifications of those subjects, that is on their watch, not yours.
True, people will argue that you are contributing to the rise of an intelligent web by your efforts, etc. Sure, and the click tracking done by Google, merchandisers and others are designed to get better products into my hands for my benefit. You know, there are some things I won’t even politely pretend to believe.
People are not tracking information or semantics to benefit you. Sorry, I wish I could say that were different but its not. To paraphrase Wesley in the Princess Bride, “..anyone who says differently is selling something.”