Does the Semantic Web matter?
Summary: My business card reads 'Technology Evangelist,' and this is a blog about the Semantic Web. So that should be an unequivocal 'Yes!
My business card reads 'Technology Evangelist,' and this is a blog about the Semantic Web. So that should be an unequivocal 'Yes!' then, right?
However, it's frequently worthwhile to revisit and question presumptions, beliefs and 'truths,' and the Semantic Web that dominates so much of my working day should be no exception.
I am surrounded by smart people who live and breathe the Semantic Web, and I'm an employee and shareholder in a company that is betting its future growth (and, therefore, mine) on the significance and viability of this next wave.
Through this blog, my podcasts and other activities, I’ve probably met (or will meet) the cream of the Semantic Technology crop, and it is both an honour and daunting to move in such circles. The vision of these individuals is often compelling, although the gleam of zealous fervour in some eyes can prove unsettling.
The 'excitement' of squeezing another million triples into your triple store is, frankly, not that exciting in the bigger scheme of things. Talk of huge and all-encompassing ontologies is deeply unsettling, both philosophically and practically. Expectations, whether implicit or explicit, that vast legions will 'do' the Semantic Web and express themselves in RDF are, frankly, lunacy. The speed with which 'RDF' or 'OWL' enter any conversation about the Semantic Web is worrying; and must ultimately prove self-defeating as potential adopters retreat from a barrage of terminology and an opaque glut of unnecessary detail.
Continuing landgrabs by startups that seek to attract, trap and exploit eyeballs stand unashamedly on the shoulders of Semantic Web promise whilst running counter to its basic tenets of linking and openness. On the other hand, companies 'just' doing perfectly reasonable - and valuable - things with the meanings of words, phrases and documents latch on to the Semantic Web's buzz, whilst being all about Semantics and not at all about the Web.
New entrants, hopefully building viable and useful businesses upon the Semantic Web's ideas, are pilloried by stalwarts of the 'community,' because the reality of their business model does not permit a whole-hearted embracing of the entire Semantic Web stack from Day One. Intellectual purity clashes with pragmatism and reality on a daily basis. Well-meaning guidelines and best practices morph in the minds of too many to become laws, 'truths', and rods with which to beat outsiders. Visions of Orwellian pigs fill my brain, and I don't like what I see as they rise up onto two feet and gaze disdainfully around.
Deep down, though, the core principles upon which the specifications, recommendations and code rest resonate powerfully with my views about how the world should be.
The Web is a truly wonderful thing. It has made previously scarce resources available to many by removing real barriers to seeing information as a non-rival good; it is has dramatically lowered the cost of reaching an audience or market, and offers a Platform from which many millions can have their say; it ensures that the most obscure topics can develop communities of interest, even when spread over continental distances. It's fun, it's informative, it's profitable, it's transformational, it's educational. And yes, it's often 'wrong,' it can be shallow, and it remains far from universal.
The mainstream Web is becoming ever-richer, as the crowd embraces Web 2.0 principles and participates in conversation across a growing number of online places. This very richness and diversity, though, poses a problem if we are to progress to the next level.
It took the rise of Google in the closing years of the last century to square that circle, dramatically increasing the discoverability of new resources and shortly thereafter settling upon a model by which Google and its dependants could make money. We take much of this for granted today, but the development of the Web - and its viability - have been both remarkable and dramatic. I remember the wonder of those early images from the Vatican and the Louvre, brought across the water and onto my desk. I remember the initial bubbling-up of 'amateur' content from individuals inside universities, the bizarrely compelling observation of a not-so-distant coffee pot, and the breathlessness with which select mainstream media (such as the UK's Guardian newspaper) tracked the journey.
Much that was once amazing is now taken for granted. Many that were once 'the next big thing' are no more. The number of people connected, the ways in which they connect, and the things they seek to do once online grow every day, yet the fundamental means of connection between all of these people, all of these places, and all of these things remains the dumb hyperlink. A simple 'look here.' A blind pointer into the Void. An impediment to further progress.
This is what the so-called Semantic Web sets out to address. All of the specifications, all of the technology, are about enabling the description of 'stuff' - and the connections between one piece of stuff and another - to be declared in ways that are explicit, intelligible and actionable to both humans and software applications acting on their behalf.
Author: Paul Miller
This tells you, the human reader, quite a lot. It's almost opaque to the growing band of software aggregators and agents that trawl the web on behalf of users.
By simply adding the semantics that associate name with person, person with the authored work, and both person and work with the 'act' of authorship, that same statement becomes more meaningful. By following the so-called Linked Data Design Issues and expressing these semantics in a 'linkable' fashion, the network of relationships between (in this case) me, my communities of interest and my authored works grows stronger and more useful, across the artificial boundaries imposed by 'communities,' applications and the like.
A wealth of data and connections exist today, with most remaining woefully under-exploited. We're already seeing big industries such as Pharmaceuticals apply Semantic Web techniques in realising the potential in the data they already have, and lowering the costs of developing new medicines as a result.
We face serious problems in the world today. Not everything can be solved by analysing and using data, but it should surely be an important tool in support of all our other efforts. By moving from a mentality that sees data 'closed' by default to one in which data is 'open' by default, we have much to gain. By embracing 'the Web' within our applications rather than continuing to see it, practically, as merely an adjunct we can unlock more of the potential that already exists.
The Semantic Web is not some 'new' Web. It is not a replacement for what we have today. It is a progression, and an embracing of shifting perceptions as to what is 'normal' and what is possible.
So yes, the Semantic Web does matter. And it’s my job to play my small part in showing you how, and why.
Bring it on.
Image shared on Flickr by Matthew Jett Hall.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
Semantic Web does matter, but ...
I agree to your post, Semantic Web does matter.
Unquestionably, the Web is moving towards a stage that
machines may understand our humans better and better.
It is the future. In order to reach the future, one
thing we must do is to educate machines so that they
may understand the meanings of content, which is what
the Semantic Web community is working. It is the
future and it does matter.
On the other hand, however, due to the recent
collaboration with a new IT startup company Imindi
(probably you have already known it by the most recent
Semantic Web Gang podcast) I start to think of another
take of this Semantic Web, i.e., we should also let
machines to improve humans as well as let humans to
improve machines.
As both of us know, a difficulty of advertising
Semantic Web is why people would be willing to help
machines by add extra annotations (or things like
that) so that machines (instead of humans) can consume
and then understand semantics. This is a very hard
problem. Although many Semantic Web researchers that
including you and me have tried to persuade the
skeptics the inevitableness of Semantic Web, many
regular people still doubt of it since they cannot see
why they need to do it without any immediate payback.
Now here may be the solution. We improve machines
because machines can improve (rather than just help)
us. In my mind, Imindi is such an attempt. The new
take of Semantic Web represented by Imindi might be a
great breakthrough that would bring regular unintended
Web users into the world of semantics.
Anyway, it's always great to share with you. If you
are interested in Imindi, I would be available to
share with you more about it. I have heavily involved
in it. ;-)
Yihong
Frightening vision
I suppose it depends on what you mean when you write "we should also let machines to improve humans as well as let humans to improve machines".
Is that what we really want?
My concern is that we become intellectually ignorant and lazy, just as we've become physically lazy. Technology becomes a crutch, an intellectual lifeline.
The physical laziness is already obvious in developed countries where technology has been used to supplement and supplant physical activities for decades now. Obesity is rising fast and governments are desperate to the point of legislative intervention.
Will history repeat itself? The mind is a "muscle" that requires exercise (thinking, problem solving, etc) and nutrition (information). Too much artificial assistance may not be a good thing. We can already see the effects taking root. People who can't perform simple math without a calculator or cash register. People who seemingly cannot survive without a cellphone attached to their face and 24/7 connectivity. People who rely upon Google as an intellectual surrogate when asked simple questions.
Technology is a wonderful supplement to our species if used wisely. However, we have a poor track record in that regard. Let us proceed cautiously and never let ourselves become inextricably dependent upon an "intelligence" other than our own.
RE: Does the Semantic Web matter?
I - http://www.linkedin.com/in/iangoldsmid - have been involved in the SW space for just 2 years - and am looking for novel ways to apply it. It's recently struck me the the whole field of Business Intelligence in ripe for Semantic "Web" - for example this article by Boris Evelson: http://www.dashboardinsight.com/news/bi-crystal-ball.aspx - points to power users who typically suffer from two inherent flaws of any BI environment: pre-built, rigid data models (relational or multidimensional) that form the basis of any BI application, and heavy dependence on IT staff - this same issue has existed for the entire history of BI !...
SW to the rescue? The question then is - how do we - the SW "missionaries" - establish this application of SW to BI?
IJG
you are mentioned the same problem SW faces
Actually, near all of the problems you mentioned about
BI are in SW space as well. I would say that both
domains are inherited from the same ancestor. Sure,
Semantic Web is claiming to solve these problems. But
until now the main reason behind the slow adoption of
SW in the real world is still due to the same
questions you are arguing.
One real pragmatic resolution I may think of is to
learn from Web 2.0, i.e., collectivism or the
engagement of human power. Would the issue be solved
by adding an additional active human intervention
layer upon the machine applications? We are actually
experiencing and testing this idea.
The Web is expanding. At the beginning, the Web is a
network of computers. Now the Web may be thought as a
network of computers and mobile devices such as iPhone
and blackberry. In the future, the Web will be a
network of computers, mobile devices, and human
brains. Think of human brains as part of the
computation cycle rather than excluding it out of the
online computation cycle might bring us critical
inspiration about the eventual solution.
Yihong
RE: Does the Semantic Web matter?
Best Regards,
Michael G. Williams
There is a simple alternative to RDF and OWL
Yes, the Semantic Web matters. The Web is great now, but we can do much more with it when real understanding of text and actions are brought to computers. Right now, getting things done on the Web takes quite a bit of time. Semantic understanding can simplify many of the tasks that right now we just do because it's the only way to do them.
And I agree with your point about the lunacy of people "doing" the Semantic Web via RDF and OWL. That's a lot of work and the point of the Semantic Web is to simplify. That's why this shameless plug for Cognition Technologies' (www.cognition.com) Semantic Map is important to the Semantic Web's (and other semantic technologies) development.
Why make people tag Web pages and other content? Wouldn't it be easier of the software and systems understood the language in or on the content?
Sorry for the shameless plug, but we think people should know about alternatives to RDF and OWL!
Thanks for your great work in the Semantic space.
-TB
RE: Does the Semantic Web matter?
If we are to succeed in pushing the vision of a world in which data is open 'by default', I think the approach has to show inherent value for the organizations that create/collect this data. The realist in me doubts that many organizations will open up their data b/c it will build a better world. Some will, most won't. The minute you make data public, this data has become commoditized and lost its value for you. Granted, you can derive nice brand awareness from it, but that only helps if it can be monetized in some other ways.
As I mention in a recent blog post, I think that Web 3.0 will be the Web of Openness. But not because it's how the world should be: because we will build business models that reward increased openness in data, formats, channels. And because frankly, if you don't open up your data, you won't be able to compete. Anything short of that, and the vision of a more open web will end up next to communism in the archives of history...
Greg
http://www.semanticsincorporated.com