tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post5926172380774973661..comments2024-03-21T19:08:05.737-07:00Comments on Genealogy's Star: No man is an island, but genealogy programs areJames Tannerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02989059644120454647noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-41693781836358328242011-06-15T16:35:47.818-07:002011-06-15T16:35:47.818-07:00Great post, James. :)Great post, James. :)GeneJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02627640410669978708noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1527613590529958801.post-54871983083238530612011-06-11T10:26:49.816-07:002011-06-11T10:26:49.816-07:00Wiki? Interesting. Is this where entries are of ...Wiki? Interesting. Is this where entries are of well defined object types? By 'well defined' I am referring to well defined to the system. Though typical wikis have standard implementations (e.g. standard headings and data for an entry on a person). The question is 'does the wiki software have the knowledge that the entry is about a person?' Wouldn't it be great if wikipedia, for example, had 'well defined' object types. It could then support business logic to answer relationship queries... relationships not only of people, but of places, events, sources, etc... making a truly superior knowledge-base.Craighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15554294133921567064noreply@blogger.com