Why the Semantic Web Will Fail 179
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)."
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)
Re: (Score:2)
The Semantic Web layer cake isn't a technology stack per se. There are many ways of implementing each of the pieces in the layer cake.
The following things are what I'd say are currently necessary: URI/IRI, XML and namespaces, the RDF model. Query has been implemented quite neatly with SPARQL but it doesn't require that one have ontologies already in place. Yes, ontology-aware SPARQLing is useful as it solves the Tower of Babel problem to some extent, but it's not necessary.
How we get to Trust does not hav
So let me get this straight ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read your first sentence several times before I realized that you meant "than" and not "then". A little justification for the spelling Nazis, as this post was somewhat incoherent due to the spelling error. Surprisingly, the sentence was still grammatically correct with the spelling error, which was probably the reason it took me a moment to catch it.
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: (Score:2)
Really I don't understand what people are so worked up with about RDF. It's just the XML version of the meta tags you get at the top of html documents. Some things read those and make decisions based on them, just like RDF.
Re:It will fail for other reasons too (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology isn't going to overcome that problem. We need a new economic system.
Re: (Score:2)
If search engines start using semantic tags to prioritize their results then people will start semantically tagging their data. Time is a finite resource and people need incentives to spend their time tagging their site semantically. This has little or nothing to do with a particular economic system.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but if they're democratically elected and they have unlimited power (to "force cooperation" it says in your Constitution, but of course this really means unlimited, period), then what stops them from setting the rules so that 51% of the electorate isn't a little more equal than the other 49%?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no, it doesn't.
While that may be a practical necessity with most existing tools (just as in the earliest days of the web, end-users hand-coding HTML was a practical necessity), what the Semantic Web is about is standardized ways of exchanging such descriptions, just as what the plain-old-web
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.
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)
Also, GRDDL [w3.org] has just made microformats a part of the Semantic Web, and I have just created a system to marry taxonomies and folksonomies [opera.com], (i.e. big controlled vocabularies and tags).
There is no conflict her
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That could happen. However, in order to reach "critical mass" you need to have some number of businesses cooperating (and profiting from the cooperation) so that other businesses see the advantages of following open standards.
On the other hand, if "pioneer" companies like Google, Yahoo, and others fail to cooperate, then the odds of Web2.0 reaching critical mass are much reduced.
"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)
I never really thought of blogs inherently being semantic web, it doesn't have to be, and that didn't occur to me when I read the grandparent post.
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.
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).
Re: (Score:2)
> No it doesn't. The genius of google was that it relies on people linking to pages talking about keywords
Being a gigantic web circle jerk doesn't make the results any less noisy.
It just makes popular stuff more "popular". If you aren't searching for the
latest craze all the cool kids are talking about, you can spend a fair amount of time
crafting keywords to filte
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, false advertisement aside, when requesting a listong of everything pertaining to, say, "Alice Cooper", how
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is in the interaction initiative. With Google you have to construct a complex query from scratch, by combining logical operators (AND, OR) and filters (+, -), and you have to decide which keywords to include.
A semantic search, on the other hand, will suggest relevant terms related to the main item - this allows to refine th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fact, I've gotten pretty damn good at creating queries to filter out all kinds of crap (most notably ebay and other shopping sites).
Don't get me wrong.... I'm not anti google at all. I use Google dozens of times a day and most often it finds what I'm looking for.
However, for something more esoteric, you might have to retry your query many times over, changing a word here o
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?).
That's a matter for the questioner to deal with. Humans can sometimes figure out what you /really/ mean when you ask an ambiguous question like that, but the questioner getting the proper result really relies on him/her having the clarity of thought to ask the right questions.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A good example of this is a product page that contains the words "add review". If the site in question has a decent page rank, it may appear high up in the google listing when someone searches for 'review "product name"' even though the page in question doesn't contain a single review. This isn't a problem for popular items that have reviews on big review sites that are assosciated with th
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care about pages, I want information
I don't think that everyone would agree with that. I don't believe that the semantic web is about data aggregation as much as it is about context sensitive search.
If you were correct, then the semantic web would not get adoption until the data aggregation function could honor the syndicator's financial need to display advertising. That would be very tricky. The syndicator would no longer be able to make any promises to the advertiser regarding placement. That would have a chilling affect on the most p
Re: (Score:2)
Another problem with the way you want to do is that the sites that have this information want you to go to them. If you visit them, they get ad impressions, possibly ad clicks and some attention/notoriety/fame/etc. If there's no attention and no money to be made because some other service has slurped your information, then it's often not worth puting up the information in a manner that's easily & automatical
Re: (Score:2)
What is broken about it? The thing is that google thinks that the link has semantics, and the PageRank algorithm is totally based on that flaw. A link doesn't have any semantics.
So, what have we done about it? RDF is
Re:Reason #1 the Semantic Web will fail (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a company called Segala [segala.com] and their main business is to use semweb technologies to make people tell the truth. And I think they are doing a good job.
true but... (Score:2)
Lying cannot be expelled but people can recognize it.
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?
Re: (Score:2)
A major point of the semantic web is that semantic markup about a resource can be provided anywhere else on the (semantic) web. You may not trust the markup in an unknown document about which you know nothing, but you may be able to trust the markup about that documented provided by a trusted source. And, if you apply some rules for delegating trust, you may automatically provi
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
But Web 2.0 is distinctly different from the Semantic Web. The Semantic Web is about structuring data on a global level and allow queries on them. There is a lot of structured data out there (in backend databases, XML trees, etc), and making them available in a consistent data model, the Semantic Web is here.
The bi
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Whitelisting and search personalization. When your search engine is giving priority to people you know and trust and sites they say they trust then the spam problem is significantly lessened. The OpenID community are already using OpenID as a spam whitelisting mechanism. In the Semantic Web layer cake [w3.org], there is a layer called Trust, which is based on a combination of the RDF stack and document signing and encryption. Even if that isn't the way it's approached, Trust is something that SemWeb people are conce
There is a lot of work on this problem (Score:2)
Right now, we're building semweb based trust metrics [w3.org] f
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but the Semantic Web also enables the kind of metametadata that enables automatically ignoring metadata from sources that your circle of trust (has designated as "spammers" or "scammers"), provided that you also have an accountability/trust mechanism, like relying on signed metadata.
But, really, lots of problems
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you seen GRDDL [w3.org]? It's a way of producing RDF/XML data from "plain XML" (although not plain CSV...), and XHTML too (and HTML if you run stuff through Tidy). It's typically W3C - a big long document to explain 'XML+XSLT=RDF', but it's pretty neat nonetheless. Anything that's even vaguely structured can be turned in to RDF very easily. The W3C made a mistake in thinking that RDF etc. would be picked up straight out of the gate in 1999 (when RDF was standardised) - instead, it's taking a rather bending path
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.
The real reason = Security (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the SW will be developed bottom up (Score:2)
Contrary to this opinion:
I recently wrote in my my AI blog [blogspot.com] about my expectations that the SW will develop from the bottom up. I also wrote about this 3 years ago (PDF "Jumpstarting the Semantic Web" [markwatson.com], skip to page 3).
So, I partially agree with Stephen Downes that cooperation is unlikely, but the SW in some form will happen.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's typical "argh! It's not happening!". Well, unless people take an interest and do something, of course it won't happen.
The adoption problem needn't be. If companies and organisations are unwilling to put data up semantically, someone else will. We see this already with accessibility - in the UK, a replacement train times website [traintimes.org.uk] has been built to replace the crappy National Rail website. I wrote a MySpace screen scraper recently so I wouldn't have to visit the profiles of my friends, and instead I
This is not failure (Score:2)
Google already turned off its Search API (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, until computers become intelligent, they aren't going to ever understand anything, and that's the problem.
Inference isn't understanding. If I tell a computer that "milk" IS A "dairy product" AND "dairy product" COMES FROM "Cow", then, yippee, the computer 'understands' that milk is comes from cows.
But that doesn't help the computer to know what the adjective 'milky' means. It surely does NOT mean 'similar or pertaining to that which comes from cows', or else
Re: (Score:2)
My private opinion is that http://omegawiki.org/ [omegawiki.org] provides the multilingual support, a combination that brings the Semantic MediaWiki together with t
Great link! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. All the current meta-tag abusers will dilute the Semantic Web as soon as it is profitable to do so. Currently the Semantic Web is akin to the WWW prior to Mosaic. Neato. Not as useful as Gopher but cool.
1.1 Accurate and meaningful description is hard even if you want to do it right. Is writing documentation easy, or hard?
Finally, as described by Shirky, the idea of chaining these tags together for a larger insight is simply lau
Re: (Score:2)
This is a good point, and one reason that for the Semantic Web to go anywhere, trust and accountability are going to need to be front and center. Not that these are particularly hard problems, in fact the tools needed are widely available.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The semantic web does not rely on businesses wanting to share information.
It does rely on people wanting to make claims about resources, and people wanting to know what other people are claiming resources. Not that "people" may include, but is not limited to, "businesses".