Yet another structured-data enhancement
I like David Peterson’s blog: yesterday I read an interesting article on how structured data (such as embedded meta or microformats) might take on Google.
While the usage of such data is pretty impressive and its rendering fits perfectly with our expectations of “data-gadgetry”, structured-data are still a very sparse.
My understanding of Yahoo’s Microsearch is not much more than a “web1.0 search” with toppings on top. It looks nice, but at the end of the day, only a minority of the data is treated (which leads to flicker-style indexing aberrations).
Details are certainly important, but as long as the meaning itself is not at the core of information processing, we are all using a bike with no wheels…
With a growing interest in the semantic web, and the arrival of major players in the field (Reuters, …), what will happen of our data? Aren’t we about to lose the sense of it at the expense of automated “annotations”, interpreted microformats, “at-all-cost” relational connections, …
Hi Stephane,
Very interesting blog and topic, but to be honest, after having been reading this post, I feel kind of … frustating. Let me explain myself.
You are obviously not so impressed by the new Yahoo technology, but for any basic user of search engines, I am quite sure its results are more than enough.
Basically, what could be the real and concrete advantages of what the technology you propose comparing to this one?
Moreover, when you say “as long as the meaning itself is not at the core of information processing, we are all using a bike with no wheels…”, how could this meaning could be at the core of this processing? Isn’t already the case (because for any internet basic user, I am sure it is).
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:22 pm