Summary: Sometimes I think that RDF, OWL, the big 'S' semantic web are rejected out of hand because they're seen more as 'old' stuff rather than 'top down' stuff. We're in such a rush to find the next Big Thing, the next New Thing, that we look at the marvelous technology today and sneer at how quaint it is; how we can't be bothered with it all, because something new is just around the corner.
Danny Ayers, responding to a request for semantic web book suggestions made by Elias Torres listed a number including Practical RDF by yours truly. Danny wrote:
From those I've seen, I'd very much go along with Bill's suggestions, and if pressed for one book would probably suggest Tom's - good concise overview of the ideas. Sowa's book is amazing, but quite hard work in places and not especially webby. Shelley's is great, very practical, but an new edition really is needed, there has been a lot of development recently, even since Tom's book.
I don't believe that O'Reilly, the book publisher, is eager to do another edition of the RDF book. The newer edition that I and my editor have chatted about is related to another book. Right now, I'm so tired with this book, after Adding Ajax, after Learning JavaScript, after…that I'm beginning to think this might be it for me.
I'd like to see an updated Practical RDF, if only to cover all the nifty applications and advances since the old was written. I'm still fond of RDF/XML, but it should include the newer serialization techniques. Some major real world applications have been created using RDF, such as Joost.
I also think there's a lot of confusion–still–about 'semantic' web. The recent Web 3.0 fooflah demonstrates that point clearly. In his retort to the 3.0 nonsense (of which I agree with his sentiment to Calacanis' brain child) Tim O'Reilly wrote:
So for starters, I'd say that for "Web 3.0" to be meaningful we'll need to see a serious discontinuity from the previous generation of technology. That might be another bust and resurgence, or more likely, it will be something qualitatively different. I like Stowe Boyd's musings on the subject:
Personally, I feel the vague lineaments of something beyond Web 2.0, and they involve some fairly radical steps. Imagine a Web without browsers. Imagine breaking completely away from the document metaphor, or a true blurring of application and information. That's what Web 3.0 will be, but I bet we will call it something else.
I'm with Stowe. There's definitely something new brewing, but I bet we will call it something other than Web 3.0. And it's increasingly likely that it will be far broader and more pervasive than the web, as mobile technology, sensors, speech recognition, and many other new technologies make computing far more ambient than it is today.
Imagine a Web without browsers. Better yet, let's imagine a web without web servers.
Sometimes I think that RDF, OWL, the big 'S' semantic web are rejected out of hand because they're seen more as 'old' stuff rather than 'top down' stuff. We're in such a rush to find the next Big Thing, the next New Thing, that we look at the marvelous technology today and sneer at how quaint it is; how we can't be bothered with it all, because something new is just around the corner.
Like my little SVG update to my site, the other tweaks I've done, you've done, others have done, we've barely scratched the surface what we can do with the technology we have now. User agents, like browsers, still haven't even caught up with all the specs released, much less the new ones in work.
Not to excuse the browser makers, but how can they catch up with the old when the companies are in a desperate race to find the next new thing that they can't be bothered to implement, properly and completely, yesterday's specs, much less those of a few years ago. I created a small design feature for my weblog that half the people who visit in my site won't see, just because one browser company can't be bothered. Silverlight, you know. New thing.
We're on such a desperate merry-go-round chase for the new that I sometimes wonder if that shiny new thing everyone is sure is right around the corner will ever occur. Instead, we'll just end up with some piece of gilded crap that scratches the itches, and causes the VCs to salivate. I worry that we'll never advance because we don't take the time to stand still.
Which returns me to Danny's book list and doing a new edition of Practical RDF. RDF is old stuff, not shiny new. There isn't any profit to do a new book on such old stuff. That's the way it is in this new world.
If I do anything with RDF, it will have to be on my own, and most likely online. A labor of, well, not love–I love my cat. My cat and licorice. My cat, licorice, walks by the ocean, good music, great books, fantastic movies. Taking pictures. Friends and family. The environment. Justice for all.
A labor of interest, then. Writing a new book on RDF will be a labor of interest.
Maybe when I'm finished with my labor of interest, I'll parse the book into triples, give away the subject and the object, but charge for the predicate–like a mystery author giving away all but the last ten pages of her book. Now, that's new.
