Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 5th Sep 2008 21:47 UTC, submitted by KugelKurt
KDE's Aaron Seigo has published a blog post in which he details how Nepomuk and the semantic desktop can be beneficial to users. He introduces the concepts of "context" and "context switches" - possible states are "writing an OSNews news item", or "posting a blog entry", or "editing your MySpace page". When you switch from one of these contexts to another, it's called a context switch, according to Seigo. "What happens with the rest of the software running on your computer when you switch contexts?" Seigo answers his own question. "Pretty much nothing. At least not automatically."
Thread beginning with comment 329395
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-22
Maybe It's the fact that you have 3 decades of computing experience that is preventing you from getting it?
I don't mean this in a disparaging way but over time people get set in their ways and stop seeing other methods as being useful to them
I don't mean this in a disparaging way but over time people get set in their ways and stop seeing other methods as being useful to them
Well I've got 3 decades of computing experience too, and it seem blindingly obvious to me that semantic web/desktop technologies like RDF, triple store databases, ontologies and so on are really important and are beginning to have a big impact. If someone can't be bothered to find out about them and why they might matter, then that is nothing to do with how old they are.
I would say that defining what is meant by a 'context' involves 'applied philosophy of epistemology' and that is hardly a new subject.
If you see triple stores are a different sort of database, then they are perhaps more similar to pre-relational database systems, such as IDMS where you had networks of data, that are more like RDF graphs than the tables in today's dbs.
If you were familiar with prolog a long time ago, then 'subject predicate object' rules hardly look very strange.
I think describing something you haven't bothered to find out about as 'nonsense' or 'cute gibberish' is just plain lazy.
Member since:2005-07-12
If you see triple stores are a different sort of database, then they are perhaps more similar to pre-relational database systems, such as IDMS where you had networks of data, that are more like RDF graphs than the tables in today's dbs.
If you were familiar with prolog a long time ago, then 'subject predicate object' rules hardly look very strange.
If you were familiar with prolog a long time ago, then 'subject predicate object' rules hardly look very strange.
... and what exactly happened to pre-relational databases and prolog again? I believe something called a 'dodo' was involved?
The prolog bit got a good belly laugh out of me - because my comment here about 'semantic desktop' mirrors my thoughts about prolog two decades ago when compilers for it finally became available in the mainstream.
Cute, but of no practical use compared to other existing technologies and methodologies - apart from fun philosophical debates and naive pipedreams.
Edited 2008-09-06 05:44 UTC
Member since:
2008-03-17
Maybe It's the fact that you have 3 decades of computing experience that is preventing you from getting it?
I don't mean this in a disparaging way but over time people get set in their ways and stop seeing other methods as being useful to them