A Nepomuk Vision


It is always a pleasure being able to blog about someone else writing about Nepomuk. In this case it is Danté Ashton giving his vision of the Nepomuk and Scribo enabled semantic desktop. He has some very nice ideas and I hope that his words will encourage some more people to join the Nepomuk development team (we could really use the help).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

6 thoughts on “A Nepomuk Vision

  1. Pingback: Top Posts « WordPress.com

  2. That pdf file is very impressive. I never knew that nepomuk was so ambitious. I already like things like vista search / katapult / gnome do. I probably wouldn’t find a use for it all… but if it’s useful to some. I definitely wouldn’t trust my mother with nepomuk though ;)

  3. Wow! It was a fantastic read. I never really got what nepomuk would bring to the table until now and I’m excited. Nevertheless I couldn’t stop thinking about how facebook could use nepomuk’s ontologies and scribus to know not only what sorts of things I like but what I actually like and showing me an appropiate ad (example: an ad of a System76 notebook with linux preinstalled instead of an ad of a regular notebook with vista or 7 preinstalled) and whatnot.
    In spite of what I’ve just said, I’m looking forward to see nepomuk in kde fully functional (perhaps in kde 4.5? 4.6?). I’m also looking forward for a blog post about the features planned for kde 4.4 and beyond as well as an update on the current state of the virtuoso backend (I know you blogged about it recently so I wouldn’t expect it too soon). I hope you’ll have the time and the will to do so. Cheers.

  4. Pingback: Chimaera & Bellerophon » Blog Archive » GSoC 2009: wrap up

  5. I think it would also be useful if machine-generated conclusions are distinguished from user-generated (subject – predicate – object) triples and (subject – predicate – object – resource) quadruples. And then there are the conclusions about conclusions etc. In the simplest form, a number could be displayed, indicating the order (respectively: first order, second order, etc.) of the conclusions.

    Taken further, clicking on a conclusion could show a graph of how the conclusions are derived. And if groups of other people’s semantic networks are incorporated in the conclusion process, several “webs of trust” can be used to give “weighting factors” to the conclusions.

    Wild speculation: Even negative weighting factors might be used to counter disinformation by “webs of distrust”. But the latter would obviously require immense sophistication to outsmart deliberate disinformation (e.g. caused by political, commercial, and vandalistic motives).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s