Semantic Web and Web 2.0

I usually don't just point to other blog entries (thus being a bad blogger regarding netiquette), but this time Benjamin Nowack nailed it in his post on the Semantic Web and Web 2.0. I read the iX article (a popular German computer technology magazine), and I lost quite some respect for the magazine as there were so many unfounded claims, off-the-hand remarks, and so much bad attitude in the article (and in further articles scuttered around the issue) towards the Semantic Web that I thought the publisher was personally set on a crusade. I could go through the article and write a commentory on it, and list the errors, but honestly, I don't see the point. At least it made me appreciate peer review and scientific method a lot more. The implementation of peer review is flawed as well, but I realize it could be so much worse (and it could be better as well - maybe PLoS is a better implementation of peer review).

So, go to Benji's post and convince yourself: there is no "vs" in Semantic Web and Web 2.0.

Javadevelopers f*** the least

Andrew Newman conducted a brilliant and significant study on how often programmers use f***, and he splitted it on programming languages. Java developers f*** the least, whereas LISP programmers use it on every fourth opportunity. In absolute term, there are still more Java f***s, but less than C++ f***s.

Just to add a further number to the study -- because Andrew unexplicably omitted Python -- here's the data: about 196,000 files / 200 occurences -> 980. That's the second highest result, placing it between Java and Perl (note that the higher the number, the less f***s -- I would have normalized that by taking it 1/n, but, fuck, there's always something to complain).

Note that Google Code Search actually is totally inconsisten with regards to their results. A search for f*** alone returns 600 results, but if you look for f*** in C++ it returns 2000. So, take the numbers with more than a grain of salt. The bad thing is that Google counts are taken as a basis for a growing number of algorithms in NLP and machine learning (I co-authored a paper that does that too). Did anyone compare the results with Yahoo counts or MSN counts or Ask counts or whatever? This is not the best scientific practice, I am afraid. And I comitted it too. Darn.

Meeting opportunities

I read in an interview in Focus (german) with Andreas Weigend, he says that publishing his travel arrangements in his blog helped him meet interesting people and allow for unexpected opportunities. I actually noticed the same thing when I wrote about coming to Wikimania this summer. And those were great meetings!

So, now, here are the places I will be in the next weeks.

• Oct 18-Oct 20, Madrid: SEKT meeting
• Oct 22-Oct 26, Milton Keynes (passing through London): Talk at KMi Podium, Open University, on Semantic MediaWiki. There's a webcast! Subscribe, if you like.
• Oct 30-Nov 3, Montpellier: ODBASE, and especially OntoContent. Having a talk there on Unit testing for ontologies.
• Nov 5-Nov 13, Athens, Georgia: ISWC and OWLED
• Nov 15-Nov 17, Ipswich: SEKT meeting
• Nov 27-Dec 1, Vienna: Keynote at Semantics on Semantic Wikipedia
• Dec 13-17, Ljubljana: SEKT meeting
• Dec 30-Jan 10, Mumbai and Pune: the travel is private, but this doesn't mean at all we may not meet for work if you're around that part of the world
  

Just mail me if you'd like to meet.

RDF in Mozilla 2

I read last week Brendan Eich's post on Mozilla 2, where he said that with Moz2 they hope to can "get rid of RDF, which seems to be the main source of "Mozilla ugliness"". Danny Ayers commented on this, saying that RDF "should be nurtured not ditched."

Well, RDF in Mozilla always was crappy, and it was based on a pre-1999-standard RDF. No one ever took up the task -- remind you, it's open source -- to dive into the RDF inside Mozilla and repair and polish it, make it a) compatible to the 2004 RDF standard, (why didn't RDF get version numbers, by the way?) and b) clean up the code and make it faster.

My very first encounter with RDF was through Mozilla. I was diving into Mozilla as a platform for application development, which seemed like a very cool idea back then (maybe it still is, but Mozilla isn't really moving into this direction). RDF was prominent there: as an internal data structure for the developed applications. Let's repeat that: RDF, which was developed to allow the exchange of data on the web, was used within Mozilla as an internal data structure.

Surprisingly, they had performance issues. And the code was cluttered with URIs.

I still think it is an interesting idea. In last year's Scripting for the Semantic Web workshop I presented an idea on integrating semantic technologies tightly into your programming. Marian Babik and Ladislav Hluchy picked that idea up and expanded and implemented the work much better than I ever could.

It would be very interesting how this combination could really be put to work. An internal knowledge base for your app that is queried via SPARQL. Doesn't sound like the most performant idea. But then -- imagine not having one tool accessing that knowledge base. But rather a system architecture with a number of tools accessing that knowledge base. Adding data to existing data. Imagine just firing up a newly installed Adressbook, and -- shazam! -- all your data is available. You don't like it anymore? Switch back. No changes lost. Everything is just views.

But then again, didn't the DB guys try to do the same? Yes, maybe. But with semantic web technology, shouldn't it be easier to do it, because it is meant to integrate?

Just thinking. Would love to see a set of tools based on a plugabble knowledge base. I'm afraif, performance would suck. I hope we will see.