[iDC] please make comments regarding semantic overlay term

[subbies at redheadedstepchild.org]

Sigh.  I'm no disciple of anyone but myself, thanks.

As for "the point is that interpretation by a human in context is where 
meaning is defined" - I would completely agree with this, which is 
precisely why I think you're tilting at windmills.  In spite of that 
pretty statement you made, the ROOT of your argument is in fact a 
complaint that machines are not currently capable of human nuance, that 
they are not able to glean meaning from data.

To glean meaning is not the purpose of machines.  To glean meaning is the 
purpose of humans.  The purpose of machines is to assist humans with tasks 
that are too herculean for them to complete unaided.  Given the vast 
amount of data presented to us, interpreting it all, unaided, in its naked 
glory, is quite impossible.  To that end, machines are needed to sift.  
But they are not, nor should they be, employed to derive meaning from the 
data.  The only way that would be possible is if AI were a reality, which, 
currently, it is not.

Your statement that machines will push information to us like TV is 
ludicrous.  We have no control over what the television gives us beyond 
changing the pre-programmed channel.  We do, however, have the ability to 
program computers using whatever algorithm we feel is most meaningful and 
most able to send us the information we want.  Perhaps you are mad because 
the other people are not doing it for you in the way you most desire.  In 
which case I say learn to program.  You are only as much a slave to the 
W3C as you allow yourself to be.
-Alexis

+ --------
   redheadedstepchild.org
        ------- +

On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Paul Prueitt wrote:

::Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:50:49 -0500
::From: Paul Prueitt <psp at ontologystream.com>
::To: subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
::Cc: Sandy Klausner <klausner at coretalk.net>, idc at mailman.thing.net,
::    susan.turnbull at gsa.gov
::Subject: Re: [iDC] please make comments regarding semantic overlay term
::
::
::On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:49 AM, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org wrote:
::
::>  Semantic standards are not designed
::> to aid humans in understanding the data that passes across the web - they
::> are designed to assist machines in parsing the data and delivering it to
::> humans.
::
::
::Oh my.   So in the near future we will be the receivers of massive amounts of
::data, that the system pushes on us; but which is not organized to be
::meaningful to us.
::
::Hummm.. sounds like we already have that, it is called TV.  The Internet could
::be and is more.  The potential is for true social networking driven by a
::demand economy.  The demand side is what we do not now have fully operational.
::Balance balance balance.   Supply side by itself is ruining American, and the
::world.
::
::There is an organization to the ads and the TV programming, and there is value
::sometimes; but mostly this just feeds the addiction that is wasting the Earth,
::its resources and its people in the pursuit of consumption.
::
::The point is that interpretation by a human in context is where meaning is
::defined; unless you are one of the disciples of the Current Church of IT
::(CCIT) Incorporated.
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::
::