Web 2.0 is totally rockin’ and has been for the past 6 years.
Since taking the stage back in 1999 when Darcy DiNucci wrote her article “Fragmented Future”, Web 2.0 has jumped on and off the map until the term began its rise in popularity in 2004 at the first Web 2.0 conference by O’Reilly Media and MediaLive. If you don’t know what Web 2.0 actually is – it is all around you. It’s this blog you are on right now. It’s the social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace, the social bookmarking sites like Digg and StumbleUpon, the micro-blogging sites like Twitter, the social information sites like Wikipedia, and the list goes on and on.
The real question is “What’s next?”. Since websites have become more interactive and social during the growth of Web 2.0, the production and exchange of information has spiraled out of control without any fluid source of organization. Thus, I introduce to you Web 3.0 and a semantic web, the “utopia internet”.
Does the World make sense? Or do we make sense of the World?
Imagine every piece of data in relation to another piece of data which is in relation to another piece of data. This could structure the cyber world into an organized grid of information. Based on ontology, you could find information you seek in a more meaningful manner by the relationship between them. Rather than the internet working solely on the resource of humans reading and identifying the web, machines computers are able to accurately analyze and index the web, thus delivering an unbelievable data resource. Imagine the possibilities…
Web 3.0 from Kate Ray on Vimeo.
Clifton,
I am fascinated by the subject of a semantic web. Your post and the documentary video inspire me to look more deeply into the challenges involved in creating an indexed web of knowledge.
There are many talking points in the video that spark immediate feedback (knee-jerk) responses.
Someone said that we should move from making computers that work like our brains to designing them in machine-readable form. That begs the question: who is the consumer of data in this model? If it is the computer, then fine. However, if humans are to consume the data, we’ll still need a human-readable output of that model!
Nova Spivak (1:36 to 1:54) mentioned that everything you could name or address would have a page. I believe that the Uniform Resource Identifier severely limits the vision of a semantic web.
While the need for URLs and URNs is undeniable, I just think they don’t have enough metadata to describe all possible queries. “Uniform”, by definition, forces a single worldview on information.
As was mentioned in the video, if everyone were trained in database methods, retrieving information would be simpler. I remember in the early days of computing, people would state their queries to trained personnel who, in turn, would convert the query into a form that the computer database could understand. A semantic web would have to be that trained assistant.
Since people have a hard time describing what it is they are seeking, it stands to reason that a semantic web assistant would have a hard time delivering results! In addition, some questions defy categorization at a fundamental level used by casual searchers, although they can be grouped ontologically: “What is it like to be a bat?”
It’s one thing to search for a list of Wimbledon Semifinalists. It’s quite another to search for a list of all women who wore sun visors during their games. Whether or not somebody actually compiled a list, the searcher might not be satisfied until verification was made that a) all players have been identified and b) a visual record of their games has been consulted.
One might argue that such a query is ridiculous. That is beside the point. Researchers are known for asking all sorts of questions and drawing conclusions from the data presented. It is not up to the semantic web to validate a request.
Ultimately, I believe we will have a semantic web that is supplemented by “wisdom of crowds” knowledgebases that we see today on sites like Amazon.com, Digg.com and others. You might have results grouped by relevance, popularity and accuracy as voted up by those who have made the same query.
I’m not a big fan of such aggregated group-think, but in a macro view of the world of knowledge, it should enhance the mechanisms that constrain a semantic representation of knowledge.
Cheers,
Mitch
.-= Mitchell Allen´s last blog ..To Have and To Hold (‘Til Deft Filters Part) =-.
Wow Mitchell. After my research and readings of a semantic web, you bring to light thoughts I haven’t considered or heard else where. Your points are very clear. The biggest obstilce is the fact that often Google queries are performed by people who aren’t exactly sure of what it is they are looking for and therefore will be disappointed by their results. Nice play. :)
Awesome, that’s definitely what I was searching for! You just saved me alot of looking around
Thank you for the feedback Kyra!