News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Three reasons why the Semantic Web has failed by fidotron on Wednesday November 13, 2013 @05:04PM (#6728944)
It's a horrific example, but the point being made is true, in that in areas such as music enough information is generated regularly in a non-structured way with no tie in to the semantic web that, the Facebook silo aside, practically no one has up to date information about bands etc., certainly not Freebase or similar. It's also a lost cause hoping for such things to be comprehensive.

Facebook have also become a serious problem, in that a lot of places publish there without realising or caring that their information essentially is locked in. This gives their graph search a simply enormous advantage over anyone else.

Re:Three reasons why the Semantic Web has failed by mindcrime on Thursday November 14, 2013 @04:24PM (#6735689)
practically no one has up to date information about bands etc., certainly not Freebase or similar.

Hmm.. that leads to a couple of random thoughts:

1. How up-to-date and comprehensive does it need to be? What kinds of queries will people need to access (either directly or indirectly) about music, to serve their purposes?

2. DBPedia, through Wikpedia, actually does have a lot of information about bands and musicians and music. For example, see:

http://dbpedia.org/snorql/?query=PREFIX+dbo%3A+%3Chttp%3A%2F...

3. But Wikipedia will never be comprehensive exactly because of their notability guidelines. All the latest new super-underground Norwegian Black Metal bands that are recording in a wood shack in somebody's backyard, are not going to have Wikipedia entries.

4. On the other hand, musicbrainz.com seems to have an awfully comprehensive set of listings. And their data is part of the semantic web / linked data cloud, as well.

By way of example, Verminous are something of an underground act, and are not on Wikipedia, but their info is in Musicbrainz.

Anyway... just thinking out loud here.