[0xbadcafebee]

That's quite a fatalistic point of view for a non-technical problem. But who cares if scraping is involved? You can still use all the technologies I listed.

Looking at Hash.ai's product roadmap, it looks like they're building a "Splunk for simulations". And probably their big value-add, besides just a flashy tool, is going to be collecting and curating data. But they probably realize how much time and money it takes to constantly curate all that data. So probably what they are doing is building the tools so that individuals can curate their own data, by using a scraping tool, a transform tool, a load tool, etc. And if they want that data to be more useful within their own ecosystem, it would make sense to make all that data semantic, so that data from one customer is composeable for another customer. The more taxonomies and semantic relationships that are built over time would just make the whole dataset more intelligent over time. Enabling customers to build graphs of graphs would turn them into the world's premier crowd-sourced and curated data warehouse, netting them a trillion dollar valuation in 10 years, without ever charging a single person for access, or paying for anything but infrastructure and a couple devs.

Or maybe it's something else, I dunno.

[bena]

I think we're thinking from two different perspectives.

You're considering about what happens when the data is in HASH's possession. It'll likely be helpful for them to be Semantic, yes.

But that's not the only problem. The problem lies in the collection of the data as well. I'm thinking from the perspective of getting the data from somewhere to HASH. I'm pre-HASH.

HASH does look like a "what if we could just do the fun bit" solution. You do the grunt work of defining the parser and HASH does the fun bit of making the simulation software.