What I Meant to Say Was Semantic Web

One great way to start a fight in a crowded Silicon Valley cocktail party (and there are a lot of them these days) is to mention Web 3.0.

There is no easy consensus about how to define what is meant by Web 3.0, but it is generally seen as a reference to the semantic Web. While it is not that much more precise a phrase, the semantic Web refers to technology to make using the Internet better by understanding the meaning of what people are doing, not just the way pages link to each other.

Amid the new Silicon Valley gold rush under way, a lot of entrepreneurs seem to believe that to define something is to own it. And Web 3.0 seems like a great thing to own.

So companies are bubbling up all over the place that claim to be building part of the semantic Web. Some are building voice recognition systems to use while browsing the Internet on a cell phone. Some want to challenge Google head on with a better search engine.

The leading players include Danny Hillis, the founder of Metaweb, Barney Pell of PowerSet, and Nova Spivack, the co founder of Radar Networks.

At the Web 2.0 conference on Friday Radar Networks will show off Twine, a service that uses semantic Web technology to improve sharing information with friends and coworkers.

Mr. Spivack, who previously founded Earthweb, an early Internet development firm, is the grandson of management theorist Peter F. Drucker. It was funded in part by Paul Allen, the co founder of Microsoft who appears to be creating a small keiretsu of semantic Web start-ups.

Twine will be available in a limited test version on Oct. 29 and open to the public next spring. The idea is to create a web, not of your friends as on a social network, but instead of all of your information. Twine is intended to let you suck in email, bookmarks, RSS news feeds, websites, photos, videos, database and any other digital information. Then it tries to make sense of it.

The company is positioning itself like a Facebook for sharing information, rather than entertainment, with friends and associates.

In a demonstration I saw earlier this week Twine appeared to do a good job of what artificial intelligence researchers refer to as “entity extraction,” that is categorizing things like people and places automatically. So you will be able to find your stuff by typing in a category–job applications, Cape Cod beaches, and so on.

The service will succeed to the degree that it accomplishes its goal of exposing the meaning of the information and automatically revealing relationships to enrich information by discovering patterns that users might not otherwise identify.

In the past such “knowledge management” services have been restricted to large corporations and to world of government intelligence organizations. Now the falling cost of computing and networking will make it available to everyday consumers and in theory support it with advertising.

The program will organize data in a popular format used defined by the World Wide Web Consortium known as Resource Description Format, or RDF, in principle making it as easy to export to new kinds of services as to import it.

To be sure, there is one easy way to separate this sort of heavy duty computer problem, from the Web 2.0 chat programs and such, Mr. Spivack explained in an interview at the company’s headquarters which are located a South-of-Market neighborhood in San Francisco.

“If you’re looking to make a quick buck you wouldn’t do this,” he said .

Comments are no longer being accepted.

It may seem like progress is measured BUT if you look backwards five years or ten years, it is truly staggering how far we’ve come. Artificial Intelligence turned out to be an over-promised under-delivered bust in the 90’s and it’s wise to cast a jaundiced eye on these promises since some of the same serial offenders are behind them. However, many factors are different now, especially the relatively inexpensive cost of computiting, open standards, the open source community and, perhaps most of all, millions of developers spread around the world, not just the corridor between San Jose and Berkeley. I’m hopeful.

Intertwine it! Twine it! How clever.

I love the concept.Love it! It’s like Google but without all the cash falling out of its pocket. Google Jr.

So Twine wants to make sense out information I put on their website. I can’t wait to see this work. I hope they accept me as a beta tester. I just applied.

I think Twine should come out with a version for just young people. Because if the young people like it, it will take off. People who are into “teams” “groups” “colleagues” are not as enthusiastic when it comes to promoting products they love, so it might be a harder sell. If their target market is “businessy” people (yes wiki editors, I used the word “businessy,” deal with it), then right on.
I think Twine has a great future. The guys who own the company should start thinking about how much they would sell it for when Google Sr. comes calling. The concept sound like something Google ought to look into. If they don’t then, they’re stupid. This is genious!

Twine sounds really, really awsome. Good job!

Thanks for the update. I’ve heard of the “semantic Web” before (the term has been around for quite some time), but I haven’t really kept abreast of what startups are tackling this issue. Looking forward to checking out some of those links.

Far too speculative at the moment to determine its value. There’s too many risks. I’ll be interested, however, on how their intangibles wind up. Patents might mitigate some of the competitive factors and conversely, infringment is a major risk (look at Vonage).

Facebook et al are like a cocktail party. This could be something much more productive. The current crop of video games likewise waste enormous resources and should be repurposed as simulations of the real world. “Fun” certainly has its place, but it grows stale. Real excitement that endures serves the action of making a valuable product. It is encouraging to see the web grow up.

Shahdi Fakah-Pabahdet October 19, 2007 · 3:17 pm

From the point of view of a technologist…any time you hear someone say “Web 2.0″, “Web 3.0″, or “Semantic Web”…RUN, as far and as fast as you can. All of these are the meaningless bleatings of marketroids who have absolutely no concept of technology other than as something to bedazzle Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss into paying large sums of money for irrespective of any actual value provided.

When I look back five to ten years, I’m amazed how far we HAVEN’T come…the biggest change I’ve seen on the Web is YouTube-type embedded video, and that’s more due to increased ubiquity of bandwidth infrastructure and faster processors than from any “new paradigm”.

True paradigm shifts come when a new technology arises that gets widely utilized in unforeseen ways, a process that is rarely if ever predictable. They are never the product of the hopeful plans of clever marketers.

How different is this from Freebase.com? (created by Danny Hillis’ Metaweb). In fact it looks almost like a clone (with a few minor improvements).

The hype to signal ratio here is about 100:1.

Here’s the exec summary: there is nothing even remotely semantic about the “semantic” web. It’s nothing but search and relational database technology with attitude.

If even a tiny fraction of the promises of AI and its children had been kept we’d be living in a completely different computational world today.

“Entity extraction” indeed. Try baloney extraction.

How can one have a semantic web if one doesn’t know what meaning is?

Does anyone know what meaning, actually, is? And where does it reside? Is that a limiting factor? Of what is it made, or of what does it consist? How is it conveyed? Where does it come from? Where did it come from? With what would you analyze it? How is it retained?

Does meaning, in fact, have anything whatsoever to do with the subjects discussed here?

Hmmm.

Oh come on Shahdi, don’t be so cranky. To say that Youtube is the biggest change on the web in the last 10 years means you’re missing out on all the fun.

Whether you want to call it Web 2.0 or not, the user generated content capabilities (including web publishing) that are often included under that umbrella term have changed the way people interact with, and expect to interact with content, which is a revolutionary. For all the talk of the WWW’s ‘interactivity’ since it’s inception, the experience of consuming content online until recently was just as static as reading a newspaper or watching a TV program; you just had access to newspapers and more channels. But when you consider the new interactivity and publishing capabilities as well as cool mash-ups like Google Maps, etc., you realize the WWW has evolved to finally approach the expectations of it that were set by “marketroids” and VCs in 1995. I remember 1995, and 2007 is no 1995.

Shahdi Fakah-Pabahdet October 19, 2007 · 6:18 pm

swinsor,

What fun am I missing? You seem to be at a loss to actually come up with an example. Google Maps was a nice technical upgrade from MapQuest, and some of the newer tools leveraging it are kind of cool, but seriously, the only example anyone ever comes up with for Web 2.0 is Google Maps. It’s certainly no paradigm shift. (Oh, and I should have added “mash-up” to my list of terms to run screaming from.)

Take this blog for example…ten years ago, the NYT had forums: a vibrant group of communities discussing issues people were passionate about. Oh but Web 2.0 comes along, and we need something more Hip 2.0, and they scrap the forums for “the blogs”, now instead of communities, we have random people posting responses to single articles…and where you used to see your post pretty much instantaneously after submitting it, now you wait for minutes/hours. Some progress in “interactivity”.

In fact, there was more interactivity in pre-Web usenet groups than much of what I see on the WWW today. Twine is a perfect example, pretty graphics, but there is no “there” there, just the same promises over and over.

I’m not saying that there aren’t advancements, or that there isn’t good work being done, or that some of the goals presented aren’t good ones. But anyone who can say “Web 3.0″ with a straight face (as if blogs, Facebook, and RSS feeds are evidence that Web 2.0 was anything more than marketroid hype) ought to step back from the Kool-Aid tub.

Shahdi,

You had me at:

Take this blog for example…ten years ago, the NYT had forums: a vibrant group of communities discussing issues people were passionate about. Oh but Web 2.0 comes along, and we need something more Hip 2.0, and they scrap the forums for “the blogs”, now instead of communities, we have random people posting responses to single articles…and where you used to see your post pretty much instantaneously after submitting it, now you wait for minutes/hours. Some progress in “interactivity”.

Shahdi I really liked how you presented your thoughts. Now you seem to know what is not working, I want to know what it will it take for you to think that web 3.0 is at hand.

What type of products/technology do you think can bring the shift?

Right now a forum would come in handy. I googled you and got nothing. Do you have a screen name?
Until web 3.0 comes around or the monitors allow our comments I would like to hear more.

Gimme gimme more.

I just read that Ballmer has a mindboggling plan to purchase 20 companies a year for 5 years. Earlier I wrote that Google might come calling with a check for Twine, but with Ballmer’s plan Twiner might as well expect a call from Microsoft.

//www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=103009GS5FMQ

When I speak about these concepts, I’ve been referring to them as the context web – //www.emaildashboard.com/2007/10/the-context-web.html

To me, the web seems like a big mess up at times anymore. I have to agree with some of you about the forums and blogs being messed up.

Beyond that, I think it’s still a little early for “the Web 3.0.” Honestly, the Twine site really isn’t that special. There are probably thousands of sites out there like it already that aren’t getting any traffic. On top of that, Twine’s rank on the web isn’t that great either.
There is another site like this though, its called streamy. This site is going beyond news and RSS feeds, its going to allow you to use AIM through the service.

But honestly, what is the point to all of this? What is the point to even having a web browser anymore when sites want to over-do it and make these ridiculously over crammed, integrated websites that are suppose to make our lives easier?

I think the proper direction for Web 3.0 to go would be to start focusing on WEB STANDARDS. There are still a huge gaping hole between standard compliance with Firefox and Internet Explorer. We keep wanting to add the internet to portable devices, make all these decked out websites, and really bring the web to a new level, but there are still huge problems that are not being solved that, if not solved, in the end will cause a big train wreck in how things work and are displayed when it comes to simply viewing web pages. Who else agrees with this?? I have been developing websites for a long time and own my own business in doing so. I can tell you that people like me, which there many of still, want more efficiency to making standard compliant websites that work in ALL browsers than to make ANOTHER way to bring us news and talk to our friends. We don’t need this yet!!

“But honestly, what is the point to all of this?”

My question exactly.

I feel we have awakened an artificial intelligent sleeping tiger that will eventually maul us all.

The idea of semantic web sounds exciting. To this, I would add dynamic functionality so you can change the arrangement of objects to tease new meanings out of the same objects. This will all be a boon to OOP, so, if you don’t already know OOP, you better learn it sooner, rather than later. :)

OOP is exactly opposed to semantic/knowledge technology. Procedural vs Declarative. So, i diagree with rodsadcones :-)

OOP is exactly opposed to semantic/knowledge technology. Procedural vs Declarative. So, i diagree with rodsadcones

what is the difference between javascript and html?