Comments on: The Biggest Problem with Technology http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology Fusing Mind with Vine Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:02:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: Richard http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology/comment-page-1#comment-5026 Richard Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:02:02 +0000 http://www.grapethinking.com/?p=1054#comment-5026 Joel, thanks for your insightful comments. I didn't intend to rail against research, but rather to comment on the transition from theory to practice and what has occurred within the vacuum of the missing transition. I wholeheartedly support the work done in Universities, but I think there are a few simple steps they can take to make their work more readily accessible. One is to provide a more robust technology implementation; after all they are providing open source in many cases, and I would hope they would have a use for a more robust environment. Since much of the technology focus in general is on the Web, providing Semantic Technology reference implementations that are more readily adaptable to the Web. I could see value in providing some of this Semantic Web technology as, for example, an Apache module, or wrapped as a standards based Web Service using REST and/or SOAP and support for concurrency, at least basic multithreading support. To add this support after the fact to someone else's open source code is time consuming and inefficient as new versions or even bug fixes are released. I realize this is not the focus of the research, but this, and other simple steps, could do much to aid the utilization and eventual practical adoption of Semantic Web. However, while we await the transition of Semantic Web into more practical forms that Web practitioners can lmore readily everage, there are many accessible technologies that can be used to add the power of semantics and AI to our Web solutions today. Thanks again, Regards, Richard Joel, thanks for your insightful comments. I didn’t intend to rail against research, but rather to comment on the transition from theory to practice and what has occurred within the vacuum of the missing transition. I wholeheartedly support the work done in Universities, but I think there are a few simple steps they can take to make their work more readily accessible. One is to provide a more robust technology implementation; after all they are providing open source in many cases, and I would hope they would have a use for a more robust environment. Since much of the technology focus in general is on the Web, providing Semantic Technology reference implementations that are more readily adaptable to the Web. I could see value in providing some of this Semantic Web technology as, for example, an Apache module, or wrapped as a standards based Web Service using REST and/or SOAP and support for concurrency, at least basic multithreading support. To add this support after the fact to someone else’s open source code is time consuming and inefficient as new versions or even bug fixes are released. I realize this is not the focus of the research, but this, and other simple steps, could do much to aid the utilization and eventual practical adoption of Semantic Web.

However, while we await the transition of Semantic Web into more practical forms that Web practitioners can lmore readily everage, there are many accessible technologies that can be used to add the power of semantics and AI to our Web solutions today.

Thanks again,

Regards,
Richard

]]> By: Richard http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology/comment-page-1#comment-6397 Richard Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:02:00 +0000 http://www.grapethinking.com/?p=1054#comment-6397 Joel, thanks for your insightful comments. I didn't intend to rail against research, but rather to comment on the transition from theory to practice and what has occurred within the vacuum of the missing transition. I wholeheartedly support the work done in Universities, but I think there are a few simple steps they can take to make their work more readily accessible. One is to provide a more robust technology implementation; after all they are providing open source in many cases, and I would hope they would have a use for a more robust environment. Since much of the technology focus in general is on the Web, providing Semantic Technology reference implementations that are more readily adaptable to the Web. I could see value in providing some of this Semantic Web technology as, for example, an Apache module, or wrapped as a standards based Web Service using REST and/or SOAP and support for concurrency, at least basic multithreading support. To add this support after the fact to someone else's open source code is time consuming and inefficient as new versions or even bug fixes are released. I realize this is not the focus of the research, but this, and other simple steps, could do much to aid the utilization and eventual practical adoption of Semantic Web. However, while we await the transition of Semantic Web into more practical forms that Web practitioners can lmore readily everage, there are many accessible technologies that can be used to add the power of semantics and AI to our Web solutions today. Thanks again, Regards, Richard Joel, thanks for your insightful comments. I didn’t intend to rail against research, but rather to comment on the transition from theory to practice and what has occurred within the vacuum of the missing transition. I wholeheartedly support the work done in Universities, but I think there are a few simple steps they can take to make their work more readily accessible. One is to provide a more robust technology implementation; after all they are providing open source in many cases, and I would hope they would have a use for a more robust environment. Since much of the technology focus in general is on the Web, providing Semantic Technology reference implementations that are more readily adaptable to the Web. I could see value in providing some of this Semantic Web technology as, for example, an Apache module, or wrapped as a standards based Web Service using REST and/or SOAP and support for concurrency, at least basic multithreading support. To add this support after the fact to someone else’s open source code is time consuming and inefficient as new versions or even bug fixes are released. I realize this is not the focus of the research, but this, and other simple steps, could do much to aid the utilization and eventual practical adoption of Semantic Web.

However, while we await the transition of Semantic Web into more practical forms that Web practitioners can lmore readily everage, there are many accessible technologies that can be used to add the power of semantics and AI to our Web solutions today.

Thanks again,

Regards,
Richard

]]> By: Joel http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology/comment-page-1#comment-4925 Joel Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:21:07 +0000 http://www.grapethinking.com/?p=1054#comment-4925 Rich Interesting read. Thanks for the thought-provoking post. I agree sort-of. I guess I just view it differently. It takes a certain mindset to approach stuff so very new and "conceptual". More often then not its the very smart, "practical" business minds that can look at the University driven/research oriented developments (even within standards bodies) and distill it down to the "practical" level. Everything about the Internet started with the "pie-in-the-sky", account for everything research mentality and it took smart or "street wise" business/tech people to "mainstream" the concepts into something practical from the theoretical. It usually starts in Universities (believe me, I attended MIT and that is the grand-daddy of highly theoretical, not commercially viable ideas), but it can start in research oriented standards bodies as well. Don't rail on the researchers who ponder the theoretical. It doesn't mean "practical" wins and "theoretical" loses because without those pondering the theoretical often the practical wouldn't happen! Let them do their infinite calculations on the perturbations of life while we who can spend the time to understand what they are doing and give it a practical application (which often means simplifying and implementing the concepts as opposed to analysis paralysis) can reap the benefits! :-) Good post! Cheers! Rich

Interesting read. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

I agree sort-of. I guess I just view it differently. It takes a certain mindset to approach stuff so very new and “conceptual”. More often then not its the very smart, “practical” business minds that can look at the University driven/research oriented developments (even within standards bodies) and distill it down to the “practical” level.

Everything about the Internet started with the “pie-in-the-sky”, account for everything research mentality and it took smart or “street wise” business/tech people to “mainstream” the concepts into something practical from the theoretical.

It usually starts in Universities (believe me, I attended MIT and that is the grand-daddy of highly theoretical, not commercially viable ideas), but it can start in research oriented standards bodies as well.

Don’t rail on the researchers who ponder the theoretical. It doesn’t mean “practical” wins and “theoretical” loses because without those pondering the theoretical often the practical wouldn’t happen! Let them do their infinite calculations on the perturbations of life while we who can spend the time to understand what they are doing and give it a practical application (which often means simplifying and implementing the concepts as opposed to analysis paralysis) can reap the benefits! :-)

Good post!

Cheers!

]]> By: Joel http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology/comment-page-1#comment-6396 Joel Tue, 23 Dec 2008 18:21:00 +0000 http://www.grapethinking.com/?p=1054#comment-6396 Rich Interesting read. Thanks for the thought-provoking post. I agree sort-of. I guess I just view it differently. It takes a certain mindset to approach stuff so very new and "conceptual". More often then not its the very smart, "practical" business minds that can look at the University driven/research oriented developments (even within standards bodies) and distill it down to the "practical" level. Everything about the Internet started with the "pie-in-the-sky", account for everything research mentality and it took smart or "street wise" business/tech people to "mainstream" the concepts into something practical from the theoretical. It usually starts in Universities (believe me, I attended MIT and that is the grand-daddy of highly theoretical, not commercially viable ideas), but it can start in research oriented standards bodies as well. Don't rail on the researchers who ponder the theoretical. It doesn't mean "practical" wins and "theoretical" loses because without those pondering the theoretical often the practical wouldn't happen! Let them do their infinite calculations on the perturbations of life while we who can spend the time to understand what they are doing and give it a practical application (which often means simplifying and implementing the concepts as opposed to analysis paralysis) can reap the benefits! :-) Good post! Cheers! Rich

Interesting read. Thanks for the thought-provoking post.

I agree sort-of. I guess I just view it differently. It takes a certain mindset to approach stuff so very new and “conceptual”. More often then not its the very smart, “practical” business minds that can look at the University driven/research oriented developments (even within standards bodies) and distill it down to the “practical” level.

Everything about the Internet started with the “pie-in-the-sky”, account for everything research mentality and it took smart or “street wise” business/tech people to “mainstream” the concepts into something practical from the theoretical.

It usually starts in Universities (believe me, I attended MIT and that is the grand-daddy of highly theoretical, not commercially viable ideas), but it can start in research oriented standards bodies as well.

Don’t rail on the researchers who ponder the theoretical. It doesn’t mean “practical” wins and “theoretical” loses because without those pondering the theoretical often the practical wouldn’t happen! Let them do their infinite calculations on the perturbations of life while we who can spend the time to understand what they are doing and give it a practical application (which often means simplifying and implementing the concepts as opposed to analysis paralysis) can reap the benefits! :-)

Good post!

Cheers!

]]> By: greg http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology/comment-page-1#comment-4737 greg Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:32:54 +0000 http://www.grapethinking.com/?p=1054#comment-4737 Rich, check out the 'operator' addon for firefox... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4106. I've been using it for awhile and it's pretty cool, starting to see the semantic web come alive Rich, check out the ‘operator’ addon for firefox… https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4106. I’ve been using it for awhile and it’s pretty cool, starting to see the semantic web come alive

]]> By: greg http://grapethinking.com/the-biggest-problem-with-technology/comment-page-1#comment-6395 greg Tue, 09 Dec 2008 19:32:00 +0000 http://www.grapethinking.com/?p=1054#comment-6395 Rich, check out the 'operator' addon for firefox... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4106. I've been using it for awhile and it's pretty cool, starting to see the semantic web come alive Rich, check out the ‘operator’ addon for firefox… https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4106. I’ve been using it for awhile and it’s pretty cool, starting to see the semantic web come alive

]]>