| Question asked
|
I'm a little skeptical about Section 5: on … I'm a little skeptical about Section 5: ontologies and folksonomies, in which the author makes several statements:
# "The methods to extract it (semantics) are not logic based, but borrowed from network analysis and in fact folksonomes may require a shift in the methods applied by the semantic web community." -- What is the *shift* mentioned here? Is it general techniques already widely adopted in the Social Network Analysis (SNA) community? Or is it an improved variant of the techniques in the SW community plus some ideas borrowed from the SNA community?
# The author also mentions three features of folksonomies: lighweight, dynamic, and limited sharing scope. While I'm ok with the first one, the other two features are kind of debatable, at least to me.
## Dynamic: "Much like ontologies that stabilized after long, heated debates, these stable parts of folksonomies can in fact be considered as lightweight ontologies that represent a consensus over the meaning of terms". -- What if the stablized part becomes so small that it becomes even *useless*?
## Limited Sharing Scope: "...the mapping of folksonomies is predictably difficult, if not impossible... Folksonomies, however, will have a significant impact on realizing the original vision of the Semantic Web...". With this *limited* interoperability, can folksonomies really help to implement the original vision of SW. (Original vision of SW: "The Semantic Web provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries." from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw) undaries." from http://www.w3.org/2001/sw)
|
