The largest problem the semantic web is tackling is answering the question that is at the end of the article
> If someone has the URI of that thing, what relationships to what other objects is it useful to know about?
In many ways, its really a question about the observer than the page; which means the pages seeking to answer it - even for their own special cases - will get the answer consistently, and often subtly, wrong.
The upshot is that pages will comply or optimise for particular observers- for financial or political reasons. This makes it very hard for observers not fitting the expected mould to make definitive use of the semantic web.
For example, a world in which distributed validation is not immediately politically or financially important (ours) is one in which such schemes as described in the article are faced with a huge problem of being consistently and often subtly broken.
User validation isn't something I'd like to be widely broken.
> If someone has the URI of that thing, what relationships to what other objects is it useful to know about?
In many ways, its really a question about the observer than the page; which means the pages seeking to answer it - even for their own special cases - will get the answer consistently, and often subtly, wrong.
The upshot is that pages will comply or optimise for particular observers- for financial or political reasons. This makes it very hard for observers not fitting the expected mould to make definitive use of the semantic web.
For example, a world in which distributed validation is not immediately politically or financially important (ours) is one in which such schemes as described in the article are faced with a huge problem of being consistently and often subtly broken.
User validation isn't something I'd like to be widely broken.