Slashdot Log In
Why the Semantic Web Will Fail
Posted by
kdawson
on Wed Mar 21, 2007 06:38 AM
from the coopetition dept.
from the coopetition dept.
Jack Action writes "A researcher at Canada's National Research Council has a provocative post on his personal blog predicting that the Semantic Web will fail. The researcher notes the rising problems with Web 2.0 — MySpace blocking outside widgets, Yahoo ending Flickr identities, rumors Google will turn off its search API — and predicts these will also cripple Web 3.0." From the post: "The Semantic Web will never work because it depends on businesses working together, on them cooperating. There is no way they: (1) would agree on web standards (hah!) (2) would adopt a common vocabulary (you don't say) (3) would reliably expose their APIs so anyone could use them (as if)."
Related Stories
[+]
Flickr To Abandon Early Adopters 254 comments
An anonymous reader writes "ZDNet's Steve O'Hear opens old wounds for Flickr veterans. 'An email dropped into my in-box yesterday from Yahoo. Titled "Flickr: Update for Old Skool members", the message went on to explain that Yahoo was discontinuing the old email-based Flickr sign-in system and that from March the 15th, all users will be required to have a Yahoo ID to sign-in to Flickr. It was one of those déjà vu moments when I thought, hang on a minute, haven't we been here before?. And of course we have.' Yahoo tried to pull this stunt almost two years ago, after it first acquired Flickr. So why open up old wounds? Yahoo say it is to make the service easier to manage as they add new features, such as localization. Many users are calling this BS, saying it's all about Yahoo marketing its other properties to Flickr's user-base. Much of the criticism is being lead by a prominent user named Thomas Hawk who also happens to be CEO of Zooomr, a direct competitor to Flickr."
[+]
Super-Fast RDF Search Engine Developed 144 comments
The Register is reporting that Irish researchers have developed a new high-speed RDF search engine capable of answering search queries with more than seven billion RDF statements in mere fractions of a second. "'The importance of this breakthrough cannot be overestimated,' said Professor Stefan Decker, director of DERI. 'These results enable us to create web search engines that really deliver answers instead of links. The technology also allows us to combine information from the web, for example the engine can list all partnerships of a company even if there is no single web page that lists all of them.'"
[+]
Semantic Search Points To Better Relevancy 90 comments
ReadWriteWeb writes in to tell us about an article by Dr. Riza C. Berkan, founder and CEO of hakia.com, describing the promise of and potential for semantic search. This approach to providing more on-target search results contrasts with the dream of the semantic Web. Semantic search doesn't require all the Web page authors in the world to begin adding metadata; but it's not a sure thing that the researchers now developing the idea will get it right.
[+]
Tim Berners-Lee Discusses the Future of the Web 112 comments
maximus1 writes "In an interview with IT World, Tim Berners-Lee explains his vision of the Semantic Web. He says: 'The Semantic Web is going to take off particularly when we see people using it for data processing, when we see people using it in more and more things, adding personal data, adding files to government data.' His position on net neutrality: 'We've seen cable companies trying to prevent using the Internet for Internet phones. I am concerned about this, and am working, with many other committed people, to keep it from happening. I think it's very important to keep an open Internet for whoever you are. This is called Net neutrality. It's very important to preserve Net neutrality for the future.' And a fun tidbit — He mentions his 1989 memo to his boss at CERN that described his vision for the Web."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Far out! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Software development is getting worse. x.1 of anything is as bad as 1.0 used to be. You'd be advised to wait for Web4.2 or at the very least Web4.1 Service Pack 1.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So let me get this straight ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It will fail for other reasons too (Score:5, Insightful)
The semantic web will fail because it is too complex and noone outside the academic community working on it really understands it. The ad-hoc tagging systems and microformats Web 2.0 has brought are good enough for most people, and much simpler for the casual web developer to understand.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt we're ever going to be in a position where every site is marked up with RDF metadata, but a lot of sites are now offering APIs that are good enough to do the job, sure we're unlikely to have a universal API that allows us to query any website on the interne
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Fast? CSS has allowed us to do that since 1996 [w3.org]! :o)
Re:It will fail for other reasons too (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It will fail for other reasons too (Score:5, Insightful)
You're missing the point. It's not that the current "presentation" of the Semantic Web is too complex; the problem is that actually creating the Semantic Web is too complex a task for most Web content creators to be interested in.
Essentially, the Semantic Web asks users to explicitly state relations between concepts and ideas to make up for our current lack of an AI capable of discerning such things for itself from natural human language. But let's face it, the average Joe writing his weblog or LiveJournal entries - or even a more technical user such as myself - would generally not be interested in performing this time-consuming task, even with the aid of a fancy WordPress plugin or other automated process. This is what the parent meant by saying it's just "too complicated".
The way to realize the Semantic Web is to advance AI technology to the point where it becomes an automated process. Anything less would require too much manual labor to take off.
Parent
Re:It will fail for other reasons too (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem here is trust. All of the previous features of the web, whether it is javascript or metadata or something else, have invariably been abused by those seeking to game the system for profit. The semantic web is asking the marketplace to state relations in an unbiased fashion when there are powerful economic incentives to do otherwise (i.e. everything on the semantic web will end up being related to pron whether it actually is or not). Indeed there are entire businesses devoted to "optimizing" search engine results, targeting ads, spamming people to death, and other abuses. The problem was that the people that designed and built the initial web protocols and technologies did not account for the use of their network by the general public and thus did not take steps to technologically limit abuses (their network of distinguished academic colleagues was always collegial after all so there would be no widespread abuses). The semantic web will fail precisely because human nature is deceptive, not because the technology is somehow lacking.
In fact, this whole discussion is reminiscent of the conversation that Neo has with the Architect in The Matrix Reloaded. The Architect, as you may recall, explains why a system (the Matrix), which was originally designed to be a harmony of mathematical precision, ultimately failed to function, in that form, because the imperfections and flaws inherent in humanity continuously undermined its ability to function as it was intended. The same general principle is at work with the Semantic Web, the perfect system could work in a perfect world, but not in our world because humans are not perfect.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree on this much.
I don't think it really is. Its certainly asking people to make claims about resources, but those claims themselves are resources that may be the subject of metadata making claims about those claims. How people (or automated systems) treat particular claims on the Semantic Web can certainly depend on claims made about those claims by particular other sources of metadata. Trust
Muddled and complex are different problems (Score:3, Insightful)
At least with things like TCP/IP, relational database theory, information theory, and the like, the concepts are well defined, not some mishmash
Re: (Score:2)
See Visualizing the Semantic Web [amazon.com] , ed. Geroimenko and Chen (Springer-Verlag, 2005). Even five years ago when the first edition of this book appeared, the Semantic Web was already a reality in that the technologies around it were already mature enough to be used on internal projects. Sure, the Average Joe using Flickr might not even encounter this, but it's long been possible for developers (even relative amateurs) to powerfully manipulate semantically tagged
Web services (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We already solved the interprocess communication issue.
But now that our processes are being run on many different machines, by many different companies, all of which don't conform to any kind of standard, and the user has no control, we need to solve the issue again.
It's going to be fun to see the mess.
Re: (Score:2)
No for-profit business is in the business of providing services for free. What they will do is give you a free lunch in exchange for picking up the dinner bill.
"Why the semantic web will fail" (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Web [wikipedia.org]
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html [w3.org]
http://infomesh.net/2001/swintro/ [infomesh.net]
Nothing on any of those pages indicated that blogging is an inherent part of the "semantic web". As best as I can tell, the semantic web people want there to be some kind of SQL language for websites, so you can type "SELECT `images` FROM `websites` WHERE `porn` > 0 AND `price` = 0 AND `subject` = 'shitting dick nipples'" instead of going to Google or something.
I guess it'd be n
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The real reason (Score:2, Funny)
Reason #1 the Semantic Web will fail (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't need you to mark "This page is a REVIEW of a CELL PHONE that has the NAME iPhone" anymore. All I need to do is Google "iPhone review" or hop on over to Amazon. Problem pretty freaking solved from my perspective.
Re:Reason #1 the Semantic Web will fail (Score:5, Interesting)
Just not true. For one thing, Google's results are much too noisy. For another, it relies on keywords occurring on pages, and that's rather primitive (it's not always trivial to find good keywords, and even then you might miss the one page your were looking for because they used a synonym or misspelled it).
But the most important reason is that it would be much cooler to have a web where you could say "give me a list of all the goals scored by Romario" and have it list them for me. I don't care about pages, I want information, answers to questions. That's what the Semantic Web is supposed to be a first mini step for.
Parent
Re:Reason #1 the Semantic Web will fail (Score:5, Insightful)
No it doesn't. The genius of google was that it relies on people linking to pages talking about keywords. And uses various tools to identify and promote good linkers.
But the most important reason is that it would be much cooler to have a web where you could say "give me a list of all the goals scored by Romario" and have it list them for me.
That's a curious thing to ask for, since the first google result is a story about how there is a good bit of controversy surrounding Romario's "1,000" goals. The problem is your request is to vague and doesn't define all the words within itself (i.e. does a goal scored as teenager in a different league count?).
This goal is quite a bit higher than many realize, as you could get 10 people (5 of them experts) in a room and they wouldn't necessarily be able to agree on the "right" answer.
To ask, or even demand, that computers do the same task as a background function is ludicrious, IMHO (at least when applied to a universal context).
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, false advertisement aside, when requesting a listong of everything pertaining to, say, "Alice Cooper", how
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I do agree about noise, but only to the extent that the spam sites and the like you get
Everyone can agree that would be cool (Score:4, Interesting)
1) A search service that indexes all of Romario's goals.
2) A manually built asset that aggregates all of Romario's goals.
3) A standard system of semantic tags that self-identifies all Romario goal assets.
#1 is Google. As you point out now it relies primarily on keywords but you oversell the problem in two ways. First of all most video hosting sites already provide author and/or community tagging--thus providing a way for keywords to be assigned. Second, you're comparing a future semantic Web against the Google of today.
#2 can be provided by commercial video companies now ("1,000 Great Man U Goals," etc). It's also possible that a fan site could do the manual labor to find, upload, and keyword the videos.
#3 is the "semantic Web" approach, wherein all content providers follow a standard for self-identifying their content in a computer-parsable way.
The thing that distinguishes 1 and 2 from 3 is the scope of work required. #1 and #2 rely on a small team of dedicated people to accomplish the task. #3 relies on a very broad group of people of varying levels of dedication.
If you're talking practically about the solution, none of those approaches are going to to get to 100%. As others have pointed out there is a real human semantic problem in identifying which goals of Romario to count, how far back to look, etc.
But the key is that #1 and #2 are approaches of a scope that we know can work. #3 seems unlikely to get the buy-in and effort required.
Parent
Re:Reason #1 the Semantic Web will fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Corporate Self Centeredness (Score:3, Insightful)
Problem is, when you get so big so fast, there are almost neccessarily major flaws in the designs.
Problem is, you never get rid of them again.
Google (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, this is about the SOAP API [google.com] being replaced by a less flexible AJAX API [google.com]. Never used either of them to be honest, but that's because I don't have any real need for them. When it comes to the content of my own websites (or rather my customers websites), I'd much rather prefer relying on my own database than an index google made.
Why it will fail (Score:5, Insightful)
It might fail for the reasons given (no I've not read the full article yet - naturally) but personally I think it will fail simply because it's too much work for the amount of payback. It would be great if one day magically over night all our data was semantically marked up but that's not going to happen. The reality of it is that we will have to mark up the majority of content by hand. Even then inter-ontology mappings are so difficult that I'm not sure the system would be much use.
Perhaps worse than that though is the prospect of semantic spamming. It would be impossible to trust the semantic mark up in a document unless you could actually process the document and understand it. What would be the point in the mark up in that case?
What is it anyway? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, we're all seeing community sites, blogs, tagging, etc. But each of those sites is an individual site, and their only connections seem to be plain HTML links. Community sites don't really allow collaboration, blogs are standardized personal web pages and who here uses tags to actually find information? All these things might warrant a "Web 1.0 patch 3283" label, but is it really a new type of web? Is it the type and magnitude of paradigm shift that the first web was? It only seems like people are just becoming more aware of the possibilities of the same web it was 10 years ago.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What's really cool is the beginning of desktop to web
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with "web 2.0" is not that the web hasn't changed dramatically, it's that the term is rooted in marketing rather than technology.
You keep using that word... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You keep using that word... (Score:5, Insightful)
Lewis Carol had it right [sabian.org], and George Orwell agreed with him [wikipedia.org]: "Which is to be master" is the question that matters.
In free societies, everyone is master, and our language is conditioned only by the minimal need to communicate approximately with others. Beyond that, we are free to impose whatever semantics we want, and we do this to a far greater extent than most people realize. As a friend who works in GIS once said, "If I send out a bunch of geologists to map a site and collate their data at the end of the day, I can tell you who mapped where, but not what anyone mapped." Individual meanings of terms as simple as "granite" or "schist" are sufficiently variable that even extremely concrete tasks are very difficult.
Imposing uniform ontologies on any but the most narrowly defined fields is impossible, and even within those fields nominally standard vocabularies will be used differently by rapidly-dividing "cultural" subgroups within the workers in the field.
The semantic web is doomed to fail because language is far more highly personalized than anyone wants to believe. I think this is a good thing, because the only way to impose standardized meanings on terms would be to impose standardized thinking on people, and if that were possible someone would have done it by now. Whereas we know, despite millennia of attempts, no such standardization is possible, except in very small groups over a very specialized range of concepts.
Parent
If it can't be defined it can't succeed (Score:2, Interesting)
See? Not a hope that a concept which includes 'collaborative working groups' as part of its definition can ever succeed.
I mean these are the people which gave us HTML and CSS, god help us.
Meaning is derived by humans from the interaction between data, knowledge and dialogue. What the semantic web will give us is:
1) Data
2) Limited knowledge to the extent that common, sufficiently rich models of relationships, taxonomies
One word: SPAM (Score:5, Insightful)
But in the Real World, any online system that is used by a large enough number of people will eventually become attractive for spammers and scammers to defile and twist to their own purposes. So you'll get a deluge of pages that appear to be useful reviews of digital cameras (and are marked up as such) but in fact simply go to a useless "search" page that has lots of link farm references.
And if you say "Ok, so we don't trust the author of the page, we have someone else do it"... then who? Who's going to do all the work? Answer: Nobody. AI is nowhere near being smart enough for this. Keyword searching is, unfortunately, here to stay. If you trust the author to do the markup, then the spammers have a field day. If you say "Only trusted authors" then the system will still fail, due to laziness on most people's part - if a system isn't trivial to implement and involves some kind of "authentication" or "authorization" then nobody will use it, period. The Web succeeded in the first place because anybody anywhere could just stick up a Web server and publish pages, and it was immediately visible to the whole world.
The Semantic Web will fail for the same reason that the "meta" tag failed in HTML: Any system that can be abused by spammers, will be abused.
So, the Semantic Web, which is all about helping people find stuff, will fail. Not because of any technological shortcomings (it's all very nice in theory), but simply because we as people won't work together to make it work. Well, a small number of people could work together, but as that number got larger, until it reaches the point of being useful, it will automatically get to the tipping point where it becomes worthwhile for the spammers to jump in and foul it all up.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I believe all your arguments have been used to explain why Wikipedia will fail. Well, it hasn't failed yet.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm...
1) Academia won't allow Wikipedia as a primary reference
2) Steven Colbert
3) Authorities with unverified academic credentials
4) Reversion wars
5) Article lock-downs
Also, Wikipedia relies on many editors working on a single resource, wherease the SW relies on single editors working on many resources. It is hard to corrupt many editors, but easier to have corrupt single editors.
Obvious (Score:3, Insightful)
No matter how cool your RDF/OWL ontologies are, the real world is perfectly happy with plain XML/CSV. If there isn't an obvious benefit, people won't switch.
Other Market (Score:2, Interesting)
One other thing ... (Score:2)
Who do you trust giving away the right semantics for a page?
Maybe a handful of companies will trust each other. Or google will make them sign something?
Not a WEB I'm part of I guess.
It has already been known for a long time... (Score:2, Informative)
The Semantic Web May Fail... (Score:2)
It's relative (Score:3, Insightful)
Most likely the symantic web will fail to achieve all it's objectives but achieve some of them, and may eventually rise again after it's failed. This is the nature of progress. Good ideas that fail are usually resurrected later. However the blogger is probably right, as long as the symantic web is going to be "handed" to us by a group of established corporations it will most likely never succeed, there's too much incentive for back stabbing in that top-down implementation. For it to succeed it needs to be so obvious that there's more money and power available by playing nice that all but the most black hearted capitalists will play nice. We have to be aware that people like spammers exist, though, and anything that could potentially be used to generate advantage will be abused to death.
RDF promotes interoperability and extensibility (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the features of the W3C's model [w3.org] (based on RDF) is that it doesn't push the idea that everyone should adopt the same vocabulary (or ontology) for a topic or domain. Instead it offers a way to publish vocabularies with some semantics, including how terms in one vocabulary relate to terms in another. In addition, the framework makes it trivial to publish data in which you mix vocabularies, making statements about a person, for example, using terms drawn from FOAF [xmlns.com], Dublin Core [dublincore.org] and others.
The RDF approach was designed with interoperability and extensibility in mind, unlike many other approaches. RDF is showing increasing adoption, showing up in products by Oracle [oracle.com], Adobe [adobe.com] and Microsoft [dannyayers.com], for example.
If this approach doesn't continue to flourish and help realize the envisioned "web of data", and it might not after all, it will have left some key concepts, tested and explored, on the table for the next push. IMHO, the 'semantic web' vision -- a web of data for machines and their users -- is inevitable.
Misconceptions and risk-aversion (Score:3, Insightful)
His second point is just a common misconceptions and FAQs [w3.org]. It doesn't require that people does that.
I have just accepted a position with a consultancy that does a fair amount of work for those cut-throat businesses. And they are interested, very interested, in fact. Which is also why Oracle, IBM, HP, even Microsoft is interested.
Typical use case for them is: So, you bought your competitor, and each of the companies sit on big valuable databases that are incompatible. You have huge data integration problem that needs solving fast. So, throw in an RDF model, which is actually a pretty simple model. Use the SPARQL query language. Now all employees have access to the data they need. Problem solved. Lots of money saved. Good.
But this is not part of the open web, you say? Indeed, you're right. So, Semantic Web technologies have allready succeeded, but not on the open web. And since I'm such an idealist, I want it on the open web. So, the blog still has a valid point.
We need to make compelling reasons why they should put (some) data on the open web. It isn't easy, but then, let TimBL tell you it wasn't easy to get them on the web in the first place. It is not very different, actually. The main approach to this is capitalise on network effects. There is a lot of public information, and we need to start with that.
So, partly, that's what I'll do. We have emergent use cases, and that's the evil part of cut-throat business. You don't talk about those before they happen. So, sorry about that. I think it will be very compelling, but it'll take a few years. If you're the risk-averse kinda developer who first and foremost has a family to feed, then I understand that you don't want to risk anything, and you can probably jump on the bandwagon a couple of years from now, having lost relatively little.
But if you, like me, like to live on the edge, and doesn't mind taking risks doing things that of course might fail, then I think semweb is one of most interesting things right now.