Never Mind the Semantic Web

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

Then I guess all of computer science must choose friendly teletubby names because the general public has to understand every deployed technology.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy it :-)

The name of the involved technology doesn't matter. Twine users don't write statements and graphs, they don't need to understand what powers Twine (or any other SW service), they just have to appreciate the end-user effects it has.

It's basically a confusion of who those names are for. And if the point is that "regular" developers have a problem with the names. Well...

And saying that -

Natural-language-processing and entity-extraction are interesting information-science problems, and somebody, somewhere, probably ought to be working on them. But those tools are going to pretty much suck for general-purpose uses for a really long time. So keep them out of our way while we try to actually improve the world in the meantime.

Is a bit ignorant of the companies like Powerset that have already deployed NLP for the masses. Those that push deep CS theory the furthest into practical applications are those that will ultimately succeed.

A black-box is still useful if its effects are desirable. You don't have to understand NLP to enter a sentence in Powerset or call an API function...

Then I guess all of computer science must choose friendly teletubby names because the general public has to understand every deployed technology. I'm sorry, but I don't buy it :-) The name of the involved technology doesn't matter. Twine users don't write statements and graphs, they don't need to understand what powers Twine (or any other SW service), they just have to appreciate the end-user effects it has. It's basically a confusion of who those names are for. And if the point is that "regular" developers have a problem with the names. Well... And saying that - Natural-language-processing and entity-extraction are interesting information-science problems, and somebody, somewhere, probably ought to be working on them. But those tools are going to pretty much suck for general-purpose uses for a really long time. So keep them out of our way while we try to actually improve the world in the meantime. Is a bit ignorant of the companies like Powerset that have already deployed NLP for the masses. Those that push deep CS theory the furthest into practical applications are those that will ultimately succeed. A black-box is still useful if its effects are desirable. You don't have to understand NLP to enter a sentence in Powerset or call an API function...

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

17 months ago

I read your comment before reading the article, and I originally agreed with your comment. Then I read the article, and I can't help agreeing with almost every point. Almost. At the same time, I still agree with your comment. I know that probably sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Everything you said is spot on target. Maybe explaining my thoughts, having read both, would help.

After reading the article, I can't help thinking that RDF really doesn't belong within (X)HTML. This is a pretty big deal for me, but I can't get away from it. From a truly semantic pov, (X)HTML describes a document. I realize that it has been exploded to do all sorts of amazing things, but it is, at it's roots, a document format. Why force even more into an almost back-broken format? (X)HTML's own tags can provide a load of semantic information about the document, and that's really all it should provide.

Microformats are a great way of recognizing that and staying fairly consistent to that nature, but they really aren't a very good solution. Creating RDF using n3 is much easier than XML, though both are fine, and are much easier to create independent of (X)HTML. Building a tool to create RDF data to store at a specific URI would allow so much more data to be placed out on the SemWeb much faster. Then, using the rel and rev attributes already in (X)HTML, you could extract triples to relate web pages (HTML) to web resources (RDF, etc.) and complete the graph without trying to force in so much more information than necessary into (X)HTML.

Maybe I'm a bit naive, but that seems like a really workable solution. And if you must find a way to represent all RDF as a (X)HTML, XSLT and XQuery are great tools for doing just that, keeping in mind you are now creating a document to display data for the resource. Standard templates/queries should be able to go a long way--sort of a reverse GRDDL approach.

Or am I just missing something huge and obvious? (I tend to do that sometimes.)

I read your comment before reading the article, and I originally agreed with your comment. Then I read the article, and I can't help agreeing with almost every point. Almost. At the same time, I still agree with your comment. I know that probably sounds ridiculous, but it's true. Everything you said is spot on target. Maybe explaining my thoughts, having read both, would help. After reading the article, I can't help thinking that RDF really doesn't belong within (X)HTML. This is a pretty big deal for me, but I can't get away from it. From a truly semantic pov, (X)HTML describes a document. I realize that it has been exploded to do all sorts of amazing things, but it is, at it's roots, a document format. Why force even more into an almost back-broken format? (X)HTML's own tags can provide a load of semantic information about the document, and that's really all it should provide. Microformats are a great way of recognizing that and staying fairly consistent to that nature, but they really aren't a very good solution. Creating RDF using n3 is much easier than XML, though both are fine, and are much easier to create independent of (X)HTML. Building a tool to create RDF data to store at a specific URI would allow so much more data to be placed out on the SemWeb much faster. Then, using the <code>rel</code> and <code>rev</code> attributes already in (X)HTML, you could extract triples to relate web pages (HTML) to web resources (RDF, etc.) and complete the graph without trying to force in so much more information than necessary into (X)HTML. Maybe I'm a bit naive, but that seems like a really workable solution. And if you must find a way to represent all RDF as a (X)HTML, XSLT and XQuery are great tools for doing just that, keeping in mind you are now creating a document to display data for the resource. Standard templates/queries should be able to go a long way--sort of a reverse GRDDL approach. Or am I just missing something huge and obvious? (I tend to do that sometimes.)
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
- facyla
 
 17 months ago
 
 +1.0 (ok, this will be straight, but i have to get offline now^^)
 => if SGML had been properly understood and used since its beginning (late 60s ?), we wouldn't even have to talk about semantic web now... - it was precisely build to document, link and process data (without microformats)
 
 +1.0 (ok, this will be straight, but i have to get offline now^^) => if SGML had been properly understood and used since its beginning (late 60s ?), we wouldn't even have to talk about semantic web now... - it was precisely build to document, link and process data (without microformats)
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - Bent Rasmussen
 
 17 months ago
 
 I don't think that's true.
 
 But Microformats are the lazy mans compromise for the human-readable nature of SGML/XML.
 
 Other infoset encodings exist - binary ones (EXI). Microformats should perish and intelligent microeditors/microviews or DSL views/editors should be made "on top of" the infoset model.
 
 And how can markup be semantic just because it has links. Yes, it can link and you can name links and RDF can be expressed in SGML, but the infoset model does itself not lend itself that well to merging models and the kind of interoperability that can be expressed with the far simpler and much more general model of graphs in RDF.
 
 Binary encoded infosets, domain-specific and non domain-specific designers. An pluggable (binary) "infoset notepad" is what we need.
 
 And binary encoded graphs, perhaps in a binary infoset (EXI).
 
 Embrace binary encodings so we can finally get away from this pain of human syntax checks.
 
 Want to author an XHTML page by hand? Use an editor that does not allow you to violate the infoset syntax and one which also enforces any schema syntax layered on top. If it's binary the problem of human screw ups goes away because mechanical verification and unfolding is necessary to even comprehend the document.
 
 I don't think that's true. But Microformats are the lazy mans compromise for the human-readable nature of SGML/XML. Other infoset encodings exist - binary ones (EXI). Microformats should perish and intelligent microeditors/microviews or DSL views/editors should be made "on top of" the infoset model. And how can markup be semantic just because it has links. Yes, it can link and you can name links and RDF can be expressed in SGML, but the infoset model does itself not lend itself that well to merging models and the kind of interoperability that can be expressed with the far simpler and much more general model of graphs in RDF. Binary encoded infosets, domain-specific and non domain-specific designers. An pluggable (binary) "infoset notepad" is what we need. And binary encoded graphs, perhaps in a binary infoset (EXI). Embrace binary encodings so we can finally get away from this pain of human syntax checks. Want to author an XHTML page by hand? Use an editor that does not allow you to violate the infoset syntax and one which also enforces any schema syntax layered on top. If it's binary the problem of human screw ups goes away because mechanical verification and unfolding is necessary to even comprehend the document.
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - facyla
 
 17 months ago
 
 if i got it => why use human-readable code if human don't have to edit it directly anymore ? --good point--
 
 "how can markup be semantic just because it has links" :
 i consider "semantic" as "meaning", "sense" : a web / data model that 'makes sense' because it's structured like a neuronal network : links as qualified connections (A has_typed_relation_with B) between elements/objects (that are themselves defined by their properties = relations with other elements)
 
 + have some kind of 'memory' of links/tuples passed 'stimulations' (timestamp with origin and target of request) might be interesting ? ("living data")
 
 if i got it => why use human-readable code if human don't have to edit it directly anymore ? --good point-- "how can markup be semantic just because it has links" : i consider "semantic" as "meaning", "sense" : a web / data model that 'makes sense' because it's structured like a neuronal network : links as qualified connections (A has_typed_relation_with B) between elements/objects (that are themselves defined by their properties = relations with other elements) + have some kind of 'memory' of links/tuples passed 'stimulations' (timestamp with origin and target of request) might be interesting ? ("living data")
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - James Choate
 
 17 months ago
 
 You use human readable where there is a human interface, and then use translation tools to convert or transform into a more generic data processing form when it's just machine to machine. In my mind that's really what 'Semantic Web' does, it does the translation and gives me a standard API to build back-end tools off of. If it's done right those backend tools at some point can build new tools on their own based upon using inference engines (the specific technologies are left open) to build new 'theories'.
 
 I have a dream... a dream of taking my library (4,000 books or so, not sure 'cause I got better things to do than count 'em) and scanning it into a big file array as images (not text conversion). Then building a tool chain that initially does graphics analysis and text conversion on them. These files then get sent into an array of tools that looks for terms and sets of terms (ie tags) to allow relational structures to be built. Those structures then get coupled in with a set of notes and projects that I've also got in there. There is another layer of tools that looks for connections between the library and my ideas/projects. Another layer of tools interacts with me in weighting those connections so we can prioritize what's important. In parallel to this there should be a set of tools that scans google, wikipedia, mathworld, etc for information as well. Out of this should be another set of tools that allow me to take this and build models that I can then run on various data sets and look at the predictions. These predictions guide what notes I take, what books I buy, what web sites I want it to search next, what models I extend or build, etc. A big multi-layers IFS.
 
 Tuples and linked lists are certainly one data structure, there are many more, and will be many more as we learn more. The critical point is to build it modular with good API's so it's easy to replace a module or plug a new functional block into the sequence.
 
 You use human readable where there is a human interface, and then use translation tools to convert or transform into a more generic data processing form when it's just machine to machine. In my mind that's really what 'Semantic Web' does, it does the translation and gives me a standard API to build back-end tools off of. If it's done right those backend tools at some point can build new tools on their own based upon using inference engines (the specific technologies are left open) to build new 'theories'. I have a dream... a dream of taking my library (4,000 books or so, not sure 'cause I got better things to do than count 'em) and scanning it into a big file array as images (not text conversion). Then building a tool chain that initially does graphics analysis and text conversion on them. These files then get sent into an array of tools that looks for terms and sets of terms (ie tags) to allow relational structures to be built. Those structures then get coupled in with a set of notes and projects that I've also got in there. There is another layer of tools that looks for connections between the library and my ideas/projects. Another layer of tools interacts with me in weighting those connections so we can prioritize what's important. In parallel to this there should be a set of tools that scans google, wikipedia, mathworld, etc for information as well. Out of this should be another set of tools that allow me to take this and build models that I can then run on various data sets and look at the predictions. These predictions guide what notes I take, what books I buy, what web sites I want it to search next, what models I extend or build, etc. A big multi-layers IFS. Tuples and linked lists are certainly one data structure, there are many more, and will be many more as we learn more. The critical point is to build it modular with good API's so it's easy to replace a module or plug a new functional block into the sequence.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - Bent Rasmussen
 
 17 months ago
 
 OK, you say semantics, but SGML is just a labelled tree structure, right?
 
 RDF allows arbitrary structures to be merged because the model is so simple and universal. A graph data model subsumes all kinds of other data models. It's also just a labelled structure, but it allows arbitrary merging and has a flexible type universal system on top (RDFS and friends).
 
 There are two was to work: express information directly in the most universal model or use a less universal model and have conventions for transforming that to a more general model (RDF/XML, screenscraping to RDF, Twine item recognition).
 
 I prefer to start out with the simplest most direct encoding and to have tools do the necessary work to present it to humans and to let them edit it in a syntax guided manner. Humans should never even be able to violate the syntax rules of the encoding they write in or should be warned that if they do any particular thing that violates syntax, the data model changes from the current one to a lower-level supertype one. Of course they can still open a document in a different editor, but by default there should be this universal pluggable editor that enforces integrity, I believe.
 
 Datapad, for the masses.
 
 OK, you say semantics, but SGML is just a labelled tree structure, right? RDF allows arbitrary structures to be merged because the model is so simple and universal. A graph data model subsumes all kinds of other data models. It's also just a labelled structure, but it allows arbitrary merging and has a flexible type universal system on top (RDFS and friends). There are two was to work: express information directly in the most universal model or use a less universal model and have conventions for transforming that to a more general model (RDF/XML, screenscraping to RDF, Twine item recognition). I prefer to start out with the simplest most direct encoding and to have tools do the necessary work to present it to humans and to let them edit it in a syntax guided manner. Humans should never even be able to violate the syntax rules of the encoding they write in or should be warned that if they do any particular thing that violates syntax, the data model changes from the current one to a lower-level supertype one. Of course they can still open a document in a different editor, but by default there should be this universal pluggable editor that enforces integrity, I believe. Datapad, for the masses.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 James Choate
 
 17 months ago
 
 RDF is an extension of XML which is derived from SGML. We're talking different kinds of apples here folks, not different fruits.
 
 Acually you can express something in its 'native format' or some universal format. Your example confused format and process, you're really not talking about wo ways to work. How one works is not the same as how one displays or presents what one is working on. Don't confuse data and process/algorithm.
 
 The simplest direct encoding is none. Strictly speaking any markup that won't take a straight text file and render it correctly is broken at a fundamental level. Markup is an -extension- to the native format, not a replacement for. This is a fundamental mistake the entire industry is making across the board with the current technology.
 
 Markup should be used to extend a datum, not encode it.
 
 RDF is an extension of XML which is derived from SGML. We're talking different kinds of apples here folks, not different fruits. Acually you can express something in its 'native format' or some universal format. Your example confused format and process, you're really not talking about wo ways to work. How one works is not the same as how one displays or presents what one is working on. Don't confuse data and process/algorithm. The simplest direct encoding is none. Strictly speaking any markup that won't take a straight text file and render it correctly is broken at a fundamental level. Markup is an -extension- to the native format, not a replacement for. This is a fundamental mistake the entire industry is making across the board with the current technology. Markup should be used to extend a datum, not encode it.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 Bent Rasmussen
 
 16 months ago
 
 RDF is not an extension of XML.
 
 RDF has a serialization syntax which is an XML dialect, but the XML datamodel (Infoset) and the RDF datamodel (triples) are fundamentally different.
 
 RDF is not an extension of XML. RDF has a serialization syntax which is an XML dialect, but the XML datamodel (Infoset) and the RDF datamodel (triples) are fundamentally different.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 Bent Rasmussen
 
 16 months ago
 
 Anything can be written as a number. Anything can be written as ASCII. Anything can be written as XML. Anything can be written as RDF/XML (including XML itself - see XSet (might remember that one wrong)). Everything is syntax interpreted in some way. XML is intepreted, so is SGML, so is RDF. It's the conventions and semantics that make them useful. But some syntaxes are closer to some abstract syntax than some other syntax.
 
 I also argue that EXI is good or binary encodings in general. But that is not because EXI is closer to the Infoset datamodel, it is because EXI by-passes human intervention and forces one to use tools. Tools work consistently. They fail consistently as well - under the same circumstances.
 
 Anything can be written as a number. Anything can be written as ASCII. Anything can be written as XML. Anything can be written as RDF/XML (including XML itself - see XSet (might remember that one wrong)). Everything is syntax interpreted in some way. XML is intepreted, so is SGML, so is RDF. It's the conventions and semantics that make them useful. But some syntaxes are closer to some abstract syntax than some other syntax. I also argue that EXI is good or binary encodings in general. But that is not because EXI is closer to the Infoset datamodel, it is because EXI by-passes human intervention and forces one to use tools. Tools work consistently. They fail consistently as well - under the same circumstances.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 James Choate
 
 16 months ago
 
 I was going to drop this discussion but this raises a point I can't pass up.
 
 Strictly speaking you are right, and wrong.
 
 Yes, RDF in and of itself can be expressed in probably any language including Navaho. It won't be. Yes, the standard includes N3 (whatever that is, never had a reason to dig any deeper) and by implication it could be others.
 
 However, if you reflect on it for any length of time you realize that XML is for describing the structure a resource. RDF is for describing the meta structure of a resource. If you step back you realize that they are really opposite sides of the same coin.
 
 Now let's look at the W3 RDF Primer...
 
 http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/
 
 Abstract
 
 The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. This Primer is designed to provide the reader with the basic knowledge required to effectively use RDF. It introduces the basic concepts of RDF and describes its XML syntax. It describes how to define RDF vocabularies using the RDF Vocabulary Description Language, and gives an overview of some deployed RDF applications. It also describes the content and purpose of other RDF specification documents.
 
 Now, note it says 'XML syntax'. My prediction is that within 5 years there will be no distinction. They will be rolled into a single standard for machine to machine exchange.
 
 A developer could certainly follow the non-XML approach, my suspicion is that you'll be out standing in your field, all alone.
 
 Is RDF/XML the end? No, clearly it is not. My suspicion is that the next major step forward will come from the harnessed power of all those machines talking to each other. Some bright boy down the road will come up with a 'data representation efficiency' metric (ala Shannon's Entropy) and use it on a genetic algorithm as the fitness decision mechanism. Wouldn't necessarily surprise me if it actually gets done by accident as a side-effect of some other similar goal.
 
 Now, to cover the last aspect of this discussion and that is the serialization 'defect'. It's a religious argument of concern to people only. My suspicion is that when the machines get it, whether you resolve the nomenclature or not, the actual data management processes and algorithms will be the same. It's a specious point.
 
 I was going to drop this discussion but this raises a point I can't pass up. Strictly speaking you are right, and wrong. Yes, RDF in and of itself can be expressed in probably any language including Navaho. It won't be. Yes, the standard includes N3 (whatever that is, never had a reason to dig any deeper) and by implication it could be others. However, if you reflect on it for any length of time you realize that XML is for describing the structure a resource. RDF is for describing the meta structure of a resource. If you step back you realize that they are really opposite sides of the same coin. Now let's look at the W3 RDF Primer... <a href="http://www.w3.org/tr/rdf-primer" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/</a> Abstract The Resource Description Framework (RDF) is a language for representing information about resources in the World Wide Web. This Primer is designed to provide the reader with the basic knowledge required to effectively use RDF. It introduces the basic concepts of RDF and describes its XML syntax. It describes how to define RDF vocabularies using the RDF Vocabulary Description Language, and gives an overview of some deployed RDF applications. It also describes the content and purpose of other RDF specification documents. Now, note it says 'XML syntax'. My prediction is that within 5 years there will be no distinction. They will be rolled into a single standard for machine to machine exchange. A developer could certainly follow the non-XML approach, my suspicion is that you'll be out standing in your field, all alone. Is RDF/XML the end? No, clearly it is not. My suspicion is that the next major step forward will come from the harnessed power of all those machines talking to each other. Some bright boy down the road will come up with a 'data representation efficiency' metric (ala Shannon's Entropy) and use it on a genetic algorithm as the fitness decision mechanism. Wouldn't necessarily surprise me if it actually gets done by accident as a side-effect of some other similar goal. Now, to cover the last aspect of this discussion and that is the serialization 'defect'. It's a religious argument of concern to people only. My suspicion is that when the machines get it, whether you resolve the nomenclature or not, the actual data management processes and algorithms will be the same. It's a specious point.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 Bent Rasmussen
 
 16 months ago
 
 James, I like discussing with you as you're a bright individual. And let me say this, as I've just been working for over 12 hous nonstop, that -
 
 - I don't belive RDF/XML is the future
 - I do believe that short-term RDF "compatible" formats are promising (classes/properties distinction relfected in nesting structure)
 
 But whichever concrete syntax is chosen by the masses is not that important to me. In the end the path of least resistance (best performance, easiest processing, least memory usage, most robust, most extensible) will be chosen,
 
 There is nothing more extensible than RDF. Not even XML. XML just happens to be a concrete syntax which, because of its extensibility is a fun expression of RDF, which itself is insanely extensible (anything about anything, open world assumption - the pen is red and blue).
 
 As for structure vs metastructure - I've long given up on that distinction.
 
 The thing is that RDF was initially used for things like Dublin Core, describing very high-level more or less vague concepts like title, subject, etc. But to me there is no distinction between meta and data, because all data is meta and all meta is data.
 
 It's back to the discussion of a thing being its own truth but everything about some other thing is not the truth about that other thing. There are just different levels of granularity.
 
 For example
 
 - thing (a flower)
 - discrete representation (pixelisation)
 - continuous representation (vector graphics)
 - concept ("flower")
 
 Going to have to sleep soon now...
 
 James, I like discussing with you as you're a bright individual. And let me say this, as I've just been working for over 12 hous nonstop, that - - I don't belive RDF/XML is the future - I do believe that short-term RDF "compatible" formats are promising (classes/properties distinction relfected in nesting structure) But whichever concrete syntax is chosen by the masses is not that important to me. In the end the path of least resistance (best performance, easiest processing, least memory usage, most robust, most extensible) will be chosen, There is nothing more extensible than RDF. Not even XML. XML just happens to be a concrete syntax which, because of its extensibility is a fun expression of RDF, which itself is insanely extensible (anything about anything, open world assumption - the pen is red and blue). As for structure vs metastructure - I've long given up on that distinction. The thing is that RDF was initially used for things like Dublin Core, describing very high-level more or less vague concepts like title, subject, etc. But to me there is no distinction between meta and data, because all data is meta and all meta is data. It's back to the discussion of a thing being its own truth but everything about some other thing is not the truth about that other thing. There are just different levels of granularity. For example - thing (a flower) - discrete representation (pixelisation) - continuous representation (vector graphics) - concept ("flower") Going to have to sleep soon now...
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 16 months ago
 
 I need to wait to comment until after I return from vacation. You are exactly right.
 
 I need to wait to comment until after I return from vacation. You are exactly right.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 Bent Rasmussen
 
 16 months ago
 
 It's text - it's mostly ambiguous. It's not a 1:1 thought transcription.
 
 It's text - it's mostly ambiguous. It's not a 1:1 thought transcription.
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 
 16 months ago
 
 I've never thought of it that way, but you are quite correct. I wonder, though, does this mean we need to forsake the web as-is (meaning SGML / XML) for a whole new architecture, or is this simply a change in the way browsers render data / markup?
 
 I've never thought of it that way, but you are quite correct. I wonder, though, does this mean we need to forsake the web as-is (meaning SGML / XML) for a whole new architecture, or is this simply a change in the way browsers render data / markup?
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - 16 months ago
 
 "And how can markup be semantic just because it has links."
 
 It's semantic in that HTML defines links as part of its structure. It may mean nothing other than "this resource relates to this other resource," which is certainly ambiguous and mostly unhelpful but not meaningless. Also, RDF can certainly be embedded within HTML; I have no problem with that. My point was more that--and this relates to your point about binary encodings--we shouldn't have to embed all this meaning within SGML/HTML/XML that's also used for display; rather, use a transform to display the human-readable representation, of which HTML, PDF, ODF, etc. are existing formats. Perhaps new formats are needed, but those currently exist and will likely continue to be used for the foreseeable future.
 
 We should start trying to move the data to a different format and stop worrying over how to add all this meaningful data to the existing web. Freebase is an excellent example of pulling data from Wikipedia into a re-usable store. Why spend so much time and effort trying to re-create the existing web technologies when it's so much easier to just build a better infrastructure underneath upon which newer formats and tools can arise. Think of early "horseless carriages" on dirt roads. Once new roads were build (new data store infrastructure), new cars could take advantage of the benefits of the new roads (visualization technologies of which HTML is only one). This analogy seems a little weak; sorry.
 
 Anyway, the more we move away from HTML as the lingua franca of the web, the more likely we'll have a better, more scalable web for future apps and tools.
 
 "And how can markup be semantic just because it has links." It's semantic in that HTML defines links as part of its structure. It may mean nothing other than "this resource relates to this other resource," which is certainly ambiguous and mostly unhelpful but not meaningless. Also, RDF can certainly be embedded within HTML; I have no problem with that. My point was more that--and this relates to your point about binary encodings--we shouldn't have to embed all this meaning within SGML/HTML/XML that's also used for display; rather, use a transform to display the human-readable representation, of which HTML, PDF, ODF, etc. are existing formats. Perhaps new formats are needed, but those currently exist and will likely continue to be used for the foreseeable future. We should start trying to move the data to a different format and stop worrying over how to add all this meaningful data to the existing web. Freebase is an excellent example of pulling data from Wikipedia into a re-usable store. Why spend so much time and effort trying to re-create the existing web technologies when it's so much easier to just build a better infrastructure underneath upon which newer formats and tools can arise. Think of early "horseless carriages" on dirt roads. Once new roads were build (new data store infrastructure), new cars could take advantage of the benefits of the new roads (visualization technologies of which HTML is only one). This analogy seems a little weak; sorry. Anyway, the more we move away from HTML as the lingua franca of the web, the more likely we'll have a better, more scalable web for future apps and tools.
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - Bent Rasmussen
 
 16 months ago
 
 Indeed.
 
 There is too much focus on having formats that are human readable - it confuses representation and presentation.
 
 Presentation should be a function of representation. Representation should not be presentation friendly per se.
 
 Instead we need to have a natural efficient unniversal encoding for knowledge bases and push everything into that format. No microformats, no compromises. Microformats are not extensible. They are there to please humans (in one way or the other).
 
 Linked graphs are the scalable alternative. Microformats are the way of the past. I don't particularly care how the linked graphs are coded, but they will, by their natural form, be extensible, mergable and lend themselves well to partial understanding. If they happen to be coded in a binary form, then they're relatively impervious to human screwups - sans by proxy (coders).
 
 Indeed. There is too much focus on having formats that are human readable - it confuses representation and presentation. Presentation should be a function of representation. Representation should not be presentation friendly per se. Instead we need to have a natural efficient unniversal encoding for knowledge bases and push everything into that format. No microformats, no compromises. Microformats are not extensible. They are there to please humans (in one way or the other). Linked graphs are the scalable alternative. Microformats are the way of the past. I don't particularly care how the linked graphs are coded, but they will, by their natural form, be extensible, mergable and lend themselves well to partial understanding. If they happen to be coded in a binary form, then they're relatively impervious to human screwups - sans by proxy (coders).
 
 Some HTML is allowed.
 
 Reply
 
 Cancel
 
 Submit
 
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Nova Spivack

17 months ago

The author of that blog seems to have spent quite a lot of time "not minding" the Semantic Web. :^)

The author of that blog seems to have spent quite a lot of time "not minding" the Semantic Web. :^)

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

I agree.

I agree.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

Whilst it is easy to pick holes in this post, I can understand the frustrations expressed.
Marking things up for meaning (whatever format) is great and gives a little bit more utility but is surely never going to achieve what some people seem to promise/suggest any more than jumping up and down a lot can be considered flying. The true meaning behind what is written on the internet and the subtle connections between things can't even be consistently parsed by two human individuals, let alone a bunch of markup or meta-data.

The real deal killer, in my opinion though is that so much of value is a conversation, and just like real people (even educated ones) don't talk in grammatically perfect sentences, they are not going to take the trouble to mark up their online conversations to be semantically parsed. An AI that can actually read in a similar way that we do just might though.

Whilst it is easy to pick holes in this post, I can understand the frustrations expressed. Marking things up for meaning (whatever format) is great and gives a little bit more utility but is surely never going to achieve what some people seem to promise/suggest any more than jumping up and down a lot can be considered flying. The true meaning behind what is written on the internet and the subtle connections between things can't even be consistently parsed by two human individuals, let alone a bunch of markup or meta-data. The real deal killer, in my opinion though is that so much of value is a conversation, and just like real people (even educated ones) don't talk in grammatically perfect sentences, they are not going to take the trouble to mark up their online conversations to be semantically parsed. An AI that can actually read in a similar way that we do just might though.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

They don't have to. Developers have to create forms that map into ontologies. And for the rest there's NLP. I think Powerset has a good example of parsing an otherwise incomprehensible scattered sentence by a miss "whatevercity". I'd say it's comming along fine... But those who bet wisely will win long-term. I'm confident the time has come for these technologies. Twine is still formulating it's ontology (I gather) but once it's v1.0, and Twine opens up, interoperability will ensue - and interestingly enough - unexpected interoperability may as well.

I don't get what this scepticism buys anyone. Sure, using ontologies by itself will not be a magic bullet. A lot of logic and rules will have to be built on top of it, but it does have very good interop characteristics almost per default.

They don't have to. Developers have to create forms that map into ontologies. And for the rest there's NLP. I think Powerset has a good example of parsing an otherwise incomprehensible scattered sentence by a miss "whatevercity". I'd say it's comming along fine... But those who bet wisely will win long-term. I'm confident the time has come for these technologies. Twine is still formulating it's ontology (I gather) but once it's v1.0, and Twine opens up, interoperability will ensue - and interestingly enough - unexpected interoperability may as well. I don't get what this scepticism buys anyone. Sure, using ontologies by itself will not be a magic bullet. A lot of logic and rules will have to be built on top of it, but it does have very good interop characteristics almost per default.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

Skepticism buys us balance the overly skeptical offset those who oversell the benefits whilst the rest of us lay at points in between.

I think what is happening is great and a big leap forward, but true NLP is the holy grail, in fact NLU (natural language understanding) would be better by far.

Even if you get some good ontologies can you imagine people entering comments in to complicated form.

Powerset offers a nice addition to searching and some useful discovery elements but after considerable playing it clear it has a long long way to go. For example I asked it "What languages does Anthony Burgess speak?". The top result in Powerset looked very like the third in Google but bear in mind that Powerset is only limited to Wikipedia at the moment. Neither of them simply returned a list of languages or diplomatically pointed out that these are the languages he spoke rather than speaks as he has passed away.

I do have rather high expectations, but I remember getting excited when text based adventure games came out, games like the Hobbit, it seemed for a moment that you could actually speak to the computer. But after Thorin had sat and sang of gold once too often, you woke up and smelt the coffee.

Skepticism buys us balance the overly skeptical offset those who oversell the benefits whilst the rest of us lay at points in between. I think what is happening is great and a big leap forward, but true NLP is the holy grail, in fact NLU (natural language understanding) would be better by far. Even if you get some good ontologies can you imagine people entering comments in to complicated form. Powerset offers a nice addition to searching and some useful discovery elements but after considerable playing it clear it has a long long way to go. For example I asked it "What languages does Anthony Burgess speak?". The top result in Powerset looked very like the third in Google but bear in mind that Powerset is only limited to Wikipedia at the moment. Neither of them simply returned a list of languages or diplomatically pointed out that these are the languages he spoke rather than speaks as he has passed away. I do have rather high expectations, but I remember getting excited when text based adventure games came out, games like the Hobbit, it seemed for a moment that you could actually speak to the computer. But after Thorin had sat and sang of gold once too often, you woke up and smelt the coffee.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Dean Allemang

17 months ago

As someone who just published a book with the words "Semantic Web" in the title, I nevertheless actually agree with a lot of what Glenn has to say. I actually welcome this sort of 'criticism' of the Semantic Web, in that it points out the directions that we semantic weenies are drawn to, even if they don't really help the industry along. So rather than 'pick apart' the post, I'd like to point to the bits that I agree with.

1. Glenn left out one crowd of people who are left behind by the word "Semantic", and this (in my experience) is by far the biggest crowd. Their attitude can be summed up by the single retort, "I'm a McAfee user, myself." And even though this isn't a joke, it always gets a laugh, opening up the discussion to what the Semantic Web really is.

5&6. Tagging and blogging aren't good examples of the semantic web, and we shouldn't pretend they are. But they are good examples of grassroots efforts to do something semantic web -like, and they provide a good window into what the common web citizen feels is missing.

7. I agree with this point (powerset notwithstanding). The Semantic Web has a viable value proposition, even without bringing in anything AI. It's great that someone is doing AI, and the Semantic Web can use that stuff too. But it doesn't need it to provide real business value.

9. I have always worried that this unusual, mathematical use of the word "graph" would throw my readers and students for a loop. Oddly, that has never happened. I don't know why not - my intuitions agree with Glenn. But my intuitions have proved to be wrong.

11. Like Glenn says, metadata is all relative, which is why having a representation in which metadata uses the same infrastructure (including query) as data is really powerful. Especially when talking to someone who doesn't know what metadata is, or even more so, doesn't care.

I can't resist taking issue with one comment - that nobody can coherently explain what the Semantic Web is. I will admit that the sum of all the stuff that people say in public about it is incoherent (so what else is new?). But I humbly submit that Jim and I have a coherent explanation in our book. Enough for the plug.

As someone who just published a book with the words "Semantic Web" in the title, I nevertheless actually agree with a lot of what Glenn has to say. I actually welcome this sort of 'criticism' of the Semantic Web, in that it points out the directions that we semantic weenies are drawn to, even if they don't really help the industry along. So rather than 'pick apart' the post, I'd like to point to the bits that I agree with. 1. Glenn left out one crowd of people who are left behind by the word "Semantic", and this (in my experience) is by far the biggest crowd. Their attitude can be summed up by the single retort, "I'm a McAfee user, myself." And even though this isn't a joke, it always gets a laugh, opening up the discussion to what the Semantic Web really is. 5&6. Tagging and blogging aren't good examples of the semantic web, and we shouldn't pretend they are. But they are good examples of grassroots efforts to do something semantic web -like, and they provide a good window into what the common web citizen feels is missing. 7. I agree with this point (powerset notwithstanding). The Semantic Web has a viable value proposition, even without bringing in anything AI. It's great that someone is doing AI, and the Semantic Web can use that stuff too. But it doesn't need it to provide real business value. 9. I have always worried that this unusual, mathematical use of the word "graph" would throw my readers and students for a loop. Oddly, that has never happened. I don't know why not - my intuitions agree with Glenn. But my intuitions have proved to be wrong. 11. Like Glenn says, metadata is all relative, which is why having a representation in which metadata uses the same infrastructure (including query) as data is really powerful. Especially when talking to someone who doesn't know what metadata is, or even more so, doesn't care. I can't resist taking issue with one comment - that nobody can coherently explain what the Semantic Web is. I will admit that the sum of all the stuff that people say in public about it is incoherent (so what else is new?). But I humbly submit that Jim and I have a coherent explanation in our book. Enough for the plug.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Kurt Laitner

17 months ago

what no free quote from the book to guide us on our symantec way?

what no free quote from the book to guide us on our symantec way?
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Jack D. Logan

17 months ago

To the author of that blog, I say, "Deal With It, and watch what happens!"

To the author of that blog, I say, "Deal With It, and watch what happens!"

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Mark Davey

17 months ago

And to say that none can "coherently explain" semantic web, is a lack of research imho. Still, like most things without a set standard it is difficult to predict where a company should place there technological resources, unless for the time being you place your focus on developing the ontologies for multiple deployments.

And to say that none can "coherently explain" semantic web, is a lack of research imho. Still, like most things without a set standard it is difficult to predict where a company should place there technological resources, unless for the time being you place your focus on developing the ontologies for multiple deployments.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

Just to be clear, I'm a designer working on a not-yet-public data-exploration system, so I'm an insider, too, and obviously my post was intended for insiders, and intended in the spirit of exasperated provocation. (Although I decided at the last moment not to title it "Fuck the Semantic Web", which would have been more provocative, and maybe better.) I care intensely about how we get machines to do a better job of helping humans understand information. That, to me, is the right problem. And the big leap forward, which to me is embracing the connectedness (i.e., graph structure) of data in everything from modeling to inquiry to exploration, seems like such a pressing and ultimately fairly simple problem that I basically can't bear that we're letting anything prevent or distract us from just solving it. To me AI is a distraction (yes, including the versions in Twine and Powerset), six flavors of OWL is a distraction, Cyc is a distraction, bad terminology is a distraction, N3-vs-RDF/X(H)TML is a distraction, Kingsley saying that RDF obviates the need for Powerpoint is a distraction. None of this is helping us advanced the state of information technology as fast as we could be. None of it is necessary, and worse, none of it is sufficient.

So yeah, "Deal with it, and watch what happens". I deal with it for a living, as I assume many of you do (which is why I cross-posted my rant here), and I'm trying to help make it happen. As a human I want it to happen just as desperately and deeply as Nova said in "Why Twine Interests Me". It's precisely because I want the solution so badly that I want to wrest the problem-definition away from the scientists and ontologists and be able to formulate it in the most straightforward, feasible, unacademic way...

Just to be clear, I'm a designer working on a not-yet-public data-exploration system, so I'm an insider, too, and obviously my post was intended for insiders, and intended in the spirit of exasperated provocation. (Although I decided at the last moment not to title it "Fuck the Semantic Web", which would have been more provocative, and maybe better.) I care intensely about how we get machines to do a better job of helping humans understand information. That, to me, is the right problem. And the big leap forward, which to me is embracing the connectedness (i.e., graph structure) of data in everything from modeling to inquiry to exploration, seems like such a pressing and ultimately fairly simple problem that I basically can't bear that we're letting anything prevent or distract us from just solving it. To me AI is a distraction (yes, including the versions in Twine and Powerset), six flavors of OWL is a distraction, Cyc is a distraction, bad terminology is a distraction, N3-vs-RDF/X(H)TML is a distraction, Kingsley saying that RDF obviates the need for Powerpoint is a distraction. None of this is helping us advanced the state of information technology as fast as we could be. None of it is necessary, and worse, none of it is sufficient. So yeah, "Deal with it, and watch what happens". I deal with it for a living, as I assume many of you do (which is why I cross-posted my rant here), and I'm trying to help make it happen. As a human I want it to happen just as desperately and deeply as Nova said in "Why Twine Interests Me". It's precisely because I want the solution so badly that I want to wrest the problem-definition away from the scientists and ontologists and be able to formulate it in the most straightforward, feasible, unacademic way...

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

17 months ago

"It's precisely because I want the solution so badly that I want to wrest the problem-definition away from the scientists and ontologists and be able to formulate it in the most straightforward, feasible, unacademic way..."

I completely agree, though I respect what the scientists and ontologists are trying to do. I also agree with your list of options as nothing but distractions preventing us from arriving at a solution. I'm almost sorry we don't have some version of "Beta vs. VHS", "HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray", or "Netscape vs. IE" rather than the almost purely theoretical battles between the current contenders. At least some option would eventually win out with actual implementations. With these theoretical battles and one-off proofs-of-concept, all we get is delay and confusion.

I'm really glad that Twine, Powerset, Yahoo!'s SearchMonkey, etc. are giving us practical implementations so that we can finally move at least a few steps forward. It may be slower than desired, but it's progress. We have to at least be happy about that.

"It's precisely because I want the solution so badly that I want to wrest the problem-definition away from the scientists and ontologists and be able to formulate it in the most straightforward, feasible, unacademic way..." I completely agree, though I respect what the scientists and ontologists are trying to do. I also agree with your list of options as nothing but distractions preventing us from arriving at a solution. I'm almost sorry we don't have some version of "Beta vs. VHS", "HD-DVD vs. Blu-Ray", or "Netscape vs. IE" rather than the almost purely theoretical battles between the current contenders. At least some option would eventually win out with actual implementations. With these theoretical battles and one-off proofs-of-concept, all we get is delay and confusion. I'm really glad that Twine, Powerset, Yahoo!'s SearchMonkey, etc. are giving us practical implementations so that we can finally move at least a few steps forward. It may be slower than desired, but it's progress. We have to at least be happy about that.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Jack D. Logan

17 months ago

Glenn - I hear you caring, and feel your pain ...

Glenn - I hear you caring, and feel your pain ...

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

Glenn, I am not an insider, however, in a past incarnation I may have been a bit closer as a digital signal processing practitioner. Nonetheless, I truly appreciate your goals and your frustrations. I am staunchly against acronyms and obscure meaningless terminology in all its forms, including for the insiders. There is nothing wrong with the word Semantic-- it is completely understandable to any educated person, but N3-vs-RDF/X(H)TML is clearly a distraction. It's not that insiders cannot figure these terms out, but that it is a waste of energy and bandwidth to do so, and it forces the players to converse in languages that begin to approximate machine code, this is not helpful. Machines should aid people IDEALLY -- people should not bend their natural language to approximate that of a machine. I have worked in enough industries to have encountered enough acronyms with the same letters but with totally different meanings to just plain get frustrated at their use by insiders. The frustrated radical part of me (a rather small part) thinks users of acronyms should be shot. They do not increase understanding, they only increase the fog.
I have greatly appreciated the work of Richard Feynman ever since I learned of him when "Genius" first came out. While his singularly superior intelligence was spectacular, his most admirable and priceless gift was his ability to describe accurately, clearly and simply the most complicated and counter-intuitive aspects of physical reality in a language which almost any bright person could easily understand. His communication abilities enabled him to lead men, cooperate with colleagues and educate thousands, if not millions, of curious students the world over. He was radically opposed to stilted, unnatural, unclear language, and felt that science and engineering suffered because of it. Clear and engaging language encourages participants and stimulates discussion. Overly stilted academic language only invites the most dedicated into the discussion. The more the proponents clarify the discourse, the more easily they will attract the brightest minds to invest their time and energy on the relevant problems.
When working for Thinking Machines, Feynman once told a colleague something to the effect of, "Don't tell them it will locate the local minima. Tell them if you shake it, the balls will find the valleys."
Before my father started studying Electrical Engineering he was put into the Nuclear Engineering track. He once told me that if he had had professors like Feynman he may have stuck with nuclear engineering. Engaging, passionate and easy to understand communication is critical. Scientists, application producers and users should not have to beef up on too much terminology.

Glenn, I am not an insider, however, in a past incarnation I may have been a bit closer as a digital signal processing practitioner. Nonetheless, I truly appreciate your goals and your frustrations. I am staunchly against acronyms and obscure meaningless terminology in all its forms, including for the insiders. There is nothing wrong with the word Semantic-- it is completely understandable to any educated person, but N3-vs-RDF/X(H)TML is clearly a distraction. It's not that insiders cannot figure these terms out, but that it is a waste of energy and bandwidth to do so, and it forces the players to converse in languages that begin to approximate machine code, this is not helpful. Machines should aid people IDEALLY -- people should not bend their natural language to approximate that of a machine. I have worked in enough industries to have encountered enough acronyms with the same letters but with totally different meanings to just plain get frustrated at their use by insiders. The frustrated radical part of me (a rather small part) thinks users of acronyms should be shot. They do not increase understanding, they only increase the fog. I have greatly appreciated the work of Richard Feynman ever since I learned of him when "Genius" first came out. While his singularly superior intelligence was spectacular, his most admirable and priceless gift was his ability to describe accurately, clearly and simply the most complicated and counter-intuitive aspects of physical reality in a language which almost any bright person could easily understand. His communication abilities enabled him to lead men, cooperate with colleagues and educate thousands, if not millions, of curious students the world over. He was radically opposed to stilted, unnatural, unclear language, and felt that science and engineering suffered because of it. Clear and engaging language encourages participants and stimulates discussion. Overly stilted academic language only invites the most dedicated into the discussion. The more the proponents clarify the discourse, the more easily they will attract the brightest minds to invest their time and energy on the relevant problems. When working for Thinking Machines, Feynman once told a colleague something to the effect of, "Don't tell them it will locate the local minima. Tell them if you shake it, the balls will find the valleys." Before my father started studying Electrical Engineering he was put into the Nuclear Engineering track. He once told me that if he had had professors like Feynman he may have stuck with nuclear engineering. Engaging, passionate and easy to understand communication is critical. Scientists, application producers and users should not have to beef up on too much terminology.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

16 months ago

While much of that is true, n3, html, rdf, etc. are all valid names given to various formats and technologies. They aren't really scientific terms like "minima", they are names, and there is no way to have a really meaningful conversations if you use either full definitions for everything (hence the reason for giving a name in the first place) or using analogies for everything. Giving an analogy to explain what something is meant to do is a great teaching tool and a great way to make sure everyone is on the same page, but not each and every time the conversation comes back to those terms.

It's more a case of "know your audience." People are unfortunately afraid of new and/or big terms and shouldn't be. There is a cost to entering a discussion. If someone doesn't understand a term, they should ask or look it up. I don't think that using some of these terms is really so much to ask. After all, nuclear engineering is still called nuclear engineering, even though those terms aren't the easiest terms to understand.

While much of that is true, n3, html, rdf, etc. are all valid names given to various formats and technologies. They aren't really scientific terms like "minima", they are names, and there is no way to have a really meaningful conversations if you use either full definitions for everything (hence the reason for giving a name in the first place) or using analogies for everything. Giving an analogy to explain what something is meant to do is a great teaching tool and a great way to make sure everyone is on the same page, but not each and every time the conversation comes back to those terms. It's more a case of "know your audience." People are unfortunately afraid of new and/or big terms and shouldn't be. There is a cost to entering a discussion. If someone doesn't understand a term, they should ask or look it up. I don't think that using some of these terms is really so much to ask. After all, nuclear engineering is still called nuclear engineering, even though those terms aren't the easiest terms to understand.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

Hu Cheng, you identified the crux of the matter in your last sentence.
"The other problem with complex terminology it seems is that sometimes being deeply conversant with the terminology is mistaken for deep understanding of the ideas behind it, a problem in every field I guess."
This is precisely what Feynman's father taught him at a very young age to understand the difference between labeling something or describing something and really understanding it. Often times true understanding of certain kinds of phenomena is an elusive goal for even the most brilliant minds. Admitting what is known and what has not been understood is the first step to providing a clear introduction to a new problem. We keep talking about the Semantic Web and Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 ... but to an outsider, what are these terms referencing? Personally I want to know what has the Internet community already accomplished in these areas? What problems are well understood? What are the goals and why? What progress has been made in accomplishing these goals? And what problems remain? Once the community can come to an agreement on defining these, it will better mobilize and focus the collective brainpower and attention to bridge the gaps in understanding. Perhaps I am being totally naive, but is not the desire to resolve these gaps and expand the capabilities of the web quickly greater than the desire to seek personal gain in this space financially or academically? We will all gain with an Internet which better provides the information we seek.

Hu Cheng, you identified the crux of the matter in your last sentence. "The other problem with complex terminology it seems is that sometimes being deeply conversant with the terminology is mistaken for deep understanding of the ideas behind it, a problem in every field I guess." This is precisely what Feynman's father taught him at a very young age to understand the difference between labeling something or describing something and really understanding it. Often times true understanding of certain kinds of phenomena is an elusive goal for even the most brilliant minds. Admitting what is known and what has not been understood is the first step to providing a clear introduction to a new problem. We keep talking about the Semantic Web and Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 ... but to an outsider, what are these terms referencing? Personally I want to know what has the Internet community already accomplished in these areas? What problems are well understood? What are the goals and why? What progress has been made in accomplishing these goals? And what problems remain? Once the community can come to an agreement on defining these, it will better mobilize and focus the collective brainpower and attention to bridge the gaps in understanding. Perhaps I am being totally naive, but is not the desire to resolve these gaps and expand the capabilities of the web quickly greater than the desire to seek personal gain in this space financially or academically? We will all gain with an Internet which better provides the information we seek.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

It is somewhat arrogant to assume that people should understand your terminology when there is so much in the world to choose to learn. Things should just work, and the root ideas behind them should be explainable in plain old language.

A few years ago semantic markup just meant making a html heading use a heading tag, rather than a span tag with fancy styling etc.. Big deal, now we know it is a heading but have no idea what it means. Well it was a big deal in a few areas because screen-readers and other software can now start to guess how best to navigate around a page etc. Now of course "semantic web" is meant to mean something more.

I would hope that in a few years the various semantic type approaches that are around today will seem just as trivial, or maybe even unnecessary because I don't think they are really taking us much further (relative to the end goal) than those html tags to solving "how we get machines to do a better job of helping humans understand information". Spending too much time fiddling with them might even take our eye of the ultimate goal, if they have a purpose then near enough is good enough maybe to fulfill that purpose.

I feel that to answer "how we get machines to do a better job of helping humans understand information", the machines have to some extent understand it themselves (and I don't just mean a bunch of labels that been tapped in by a human). That doesn't have to be AI though (or even real intelligence it escapes me why an intelligent machine would be artificially intelligent any more than and we say an airplane artificially flies).
The machines can fake understanding, so long as as we find it hard to tell the difference. The hard to tell the difference thing is crucial to me, because at the moment no matter what the demo the technology or example It is still very very very easy to tell the difference. Getting computers to play chess very well didn't mean that they were intelligent, but if you want a decent game of chess and there are no humans around that doesn't matter so much (they still only play a mediocre game of Go though).

I hope that is the kind of thing Glenn means, that for me is when it is going to get really exciting :).

The other problem with complex terminology it seems is that sometimes being deeply conversant with the terminology is mistaken for deep understanding of the ideas behind it, a problem in every field I guess.

It is somewhat arrogant to assume that people should understand your terminology when there is so much in the world to choose to learn. Things should just work, and the root ideas behind them should be explainable in plain old language. A few years ago semantic markup just meant making a html heading use a heading tag, rather than a span tag with fancy styling etc.. Big deal, now we know it is a heading but have no idea what it means. Well it was a big deal in a few areas because screen-readers and other software can now start to guess how best to navigate around a page etc. Now of course "semantic web" is meant to mean something more. I would hope that in a few years the various semantic type approaches that are around today will seem just as trivial, or maybe even unnecessary because I don't think they are really taking us much further (relative to the end goal) than those html tags to solving "how we get machines to do a better job of helping humans understand information". Spending too much time fiddling with them might even take our eye of the ultimate goal, if they have a purpose then near enough is good enough maybe to fulfill that purpose. I feel that to answer "how we get machines to do a better job of helping humans understand information", the machines have to some extent understand it themselves (and I don't just mean a bunch of labels that been tapped in by a human). That doesn't have to be AI though (or even real intelligence it escapes me why an intelligent machine would be artificially intelligent any more than and we say an airplane artificially flies). The machines can fake understanding, so long as as we find it hard to tell the difference. The hard to tell the difference thing is crucial to me, because at the moment no matter what the demo the technology or example It is still very very very easy to tell the difference. Getting computers to play chess very well didn't mean that they were intelligent, but if you want a decent game of chess and there are no humans around that doesn't matter so much (they still only play a mediocre game of Go though). I hope that is the kind of thing Glenn means, that for me is when it is going to get really exciting :). The other problem with complex terminology it seems is that sometimes being deeply conversant with the terminology is mistaken for deep understanding of the ideas behind it, a problem in every field I guess.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

James Choate

17 months ago

Your line of reasoning is why I'm interested in Bayesian filters, paraconsistent logic, and some other areas that seem to be under-utilized but have a lot of potential. The RSS::Email project I've started here is focused on using Bayesian filters to parse and auto-tag and then collate items. The ability of a Bayesian filter to lay chess was one of my justifications for using this approach. The goal is to let people search for what is new or they haven't seen before and focus on integration and extrapolation.

With regard to terminology, many people confuse a name for something with that thing. They believe that because they can do some complex and allegedly 'deep' symbol manipulation it gives them some insite into the actual behaviour they're talking about. I find this to be seldom the case. Understanding is demonstrable only through action by application.

ps I have created a Go/Go-moku twine, and I'm not very good at the game :)

Your line of reasoning is why I'm interested in Bayesian filters, paraconsistent logic, and some other areas that seem to be under-utilized but have a lot of potential. The RSS::Email project I've started here is focused on using Bayesian filters to parse and auto-tag and then collate items. The ability of a Bayesian filter to lay chess was one of my justifications for using this approach. The goal is to let people search for what is new or they haven't seen before and focus on integration and extrapolation. With regard to terminology, many people confuse a name for something with that thing. They believe that because they can do some complex and allegedly 'deep' symbol manipulation it gives them some insite into the actual behaviour they're talking about. I find this to be seldom the case. Understanding is demonstrable only through action by application. ps I have created a Go/Go-moku twine, and I'm not very good at the game :)
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
16 months ago

"It is somewhat arrogant to assume that people should understand your terminology...."

What? How is that arrogant? If you are using terms used elsewhere, then you could expect someone to understand them. If you just made it up without explaining, then that would be arrogant. And it's always nice to explain your term if your audience would be unfamiliar to them. Know your audience. Frankly, I really hate reading definitions over and over again and appreciate someone giving me the benefit of the doubt when I'm in an audience that should know the subject matter.

"Things should just work, ...."

That would be nice, but unless you know some magic, people usually need to come together, define terms, communicate with those terms, and finally develop technology that "just work[s]." That technology may be developed on something that's simple to explain, in which case someone can then come along and give a nice, neat analogy to explain the basics of what's happening. Perhaps the real crime is that most people are talking about all the details and not sticking to the basic ideas? Of course, with so many competing formats and technologies, it's difficult to know what version of the "semantic web" is being discussed without listing some of the technologies.

"The other problem with complex terminology is that sometimes being deeply conversant with the terminology is mistaken for deep understanding of the ideas behind it, a problem in every field I guess."

That, I completely agree with, especially in this case.

"It is somewhat arrogant to assume that people should understand your terminology...." What? How is that arrogant? If you are using terms used elsewhere, then you could expect someone to understand them. If you just made it up without explaining, then that would be arrogant. And it's always nice to explain your term if your audience would be unfamiliar to them. Know your audience. Frankly, I really hate reading definitions over and over again and appreciate someone giving me the benefit of the doubt when I'm in an audience that should know the subject matter. "Things should just work, ...." That would be nice, but unless you know some magic, people usually need to come together, define terms, communicate with those terms, and finally develop technology that "just work[s]." That technology may be developed on something that's simple to explain, in which case someone can then come along and give a nice, neat analogy to explain the basics of what's happening. Perhaps the real crime is that most people are talking about all the details and not sticking to the basic ideas? Of course, with so many competing formats and technologies, it's difficult to know what version of the "semantic web" is being discussed without listing some of the technologies. "The other problem with complex terminology is that sometimes being deeply conversant with the terminology is mistaken for deep understanding of the ideas behind it, a problem in every field I guess." That, I completely agree with, especially in this case.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

James I will look at the Go twine for sure, I love the way that a game that seems so simple contains such complexity, I am not very good myself yet, computer Go games are more than enough of a match for me :). It also seems that plenty of people are peeking into the kind of corners that may contribute to those big breakthroughs, which is great.

Daniel sounds like I will enjoy finding out more about Feynman, I know of him but not in any great detail, my own father taught me that ignorance is not the same as stupidity and the converse, that being highly educated is not the same as being intelligent, I didn't grow up to be famous but it is one of those few things that came from him that I really cherish. I am not exactly in this field but I am a programmer who works with data and web-technologies (so it is inevitable), I am also very interested. Initially I am just trying to get my head around the basic concepts and play a little with the technologies (programming will come later). I particularly like "understand the difference between labeling something or describing something and really understanding it" because the initial technologies I have looked at seemed to be aimed at the labeling and describing of things, which is why I feel dissatisfied (I couldn't express it that well before though).

Feeling a bit down about the semantic web thing at the moment is not the same as not enjoying Twine, I am getting value from Twine already, that is good even if I have to wait some time yet before I come across something and think "now that IS semantic".

James I will look at the Go twine for sure, I love the way that a game that seems so simple contains such complexity, I am not very good myself yet, computer Go games are more than enough of a match for me :). It also seems that plenty of people are peeking into the kind of corners that may contribute to those big breakthroughs, which is great. Daniel sounds like I will enjoy finding out more about Feynman, I know of him but not in any great detail, my own father taught me that ignorance is not the same as stupidity and the converse, that being highly educated is not the same as being intelligent, I didn't grow up to be famous but it is one of those few things that came from him that I really cherish. I am not exactly in this field but I am a programmer who works with data and web-technologies (so it is inevitable), I am also very interested. Initially I am just trying to get my head around the basic concepts and play a little with the technologies (programming will come later). I particularly like "understand the difference between labeling something or describing something and really understanding it" because the initial technologies I have looked at seemed to be aimed at the labeling and describing of things, which is why I feel dissatisfied (I couldn't express it that well before though). Feeling a bit down about the semantic web thing at the moment is not the same as not enjoying Twine, I am getting value from Twine already, that is good even if I have to wait some time yet before I come across something and think "now that IS semantic".

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

James Choate

17 months ago

Richard Feynman was somebody I held in high esteem. He was on my list of 'to meet' and he unfortunately died before I could complete that goal. However, I would strongly suggest reading anything and everything you can lay your hands on by him. It will be worth your effort.

I agree with your feeling of dissatisfaction, as I told Nova shortly after joining Twine, I'm still having to do way too much of the work, and the machine is not actively presenting enough to me. Semantic Web should be an active interaction between man and machine, it's not that, yet. What I'm looking for is something that will extend my paper notebook I carry everywhere and jot notes and such in. I want to be able to bring that into an environment, and have that environment take what I've already done and make inferences on it and then actively pursue doing searching, sorting, and presentation of potential links that I can review and rate. The Semantic Web should be a research assisstent.

Richard Feynman was somebody I held in high esteem. He was on my list of 'to meet' and he unfortunately died before I could complete that goal. However, I would strongly suggest reading anything and everything you can lay your hands on by him. It will be worth your effort. I agree with your feeling of dissatisfaction, as I told Nova shortly after joining Twine, I'm still having to do way too much of the work, and the machine is not actively presenting enough to me. Semantic Web should be an active interaction between man and machine, it's not that, yet. What I'm looking for is something that will extend my paper notebook I carry everywhere and jot notes and such in. I want to be able to bring that into an environment, and have that environment take what I've already done and make inferences on it and then actively pursue doing searching, sorting, and presentation of potential links that I can review and rate. The Semantic Web should be a research assisstent.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

Twain, if you refer to the Global Collaboration Environments twine I started months ago, you might find something better approximating your aspirations. There it was my goal to develop a space (a twine) where individuals could begin to specify what a future global collaboration environment might look like. http://www.twine.com/twine/1z07bvhd-3dc/global-collaboration-environments

Initially I wanted to take the example of the holodeck from Star Trek--The Next Generation. The holodek interface would enable individuals both living and dead to collaborate in a virtual face-to-face world on projects. Just as Reichert and Luc Pacard invited Einstein and other personalities into their holodeks to solve present problems or crises, we could aim for the same.

Twain, if you refer to the Global Collaboration Environments twine I started months ago, you might find something better approximating your aspirations. There it was my goal to develop a space (a twine) where individuals could begin to specify what a future global collaboration environment might look like. <a href="http://www.twine.com/twine/1z07bvhd-3dc/global-collaboration-environments" rel="nofollow">http://www.twine.com/twine/1z07bvhd-3dc/global-collaboration-environments</a> Initially I wanted to take the example of the holodeck from Star Trek--The Next Generation. The holodek interface would enable individuals both living and dead to collaborate in a virtual face-to-face world on projects. Just as Reichert and Luc Pacard invited Einstein and other personalities into their holodeks to solve present problems or crises, we could aim for the same.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Kurt Laitner

17 months ago

"Global Collaboration Systems twine"

I don't think it's a huge stretch for Twine to parse this and throw in a link to the twine for free.

"Global Collaboration Systems twine" I don't think it's a huge stretch for Twine to parse this and throw in a link to the twine for free.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
- Daniel Feldman
 
 17 months ago
 
 Kurt, I have manually included the link to the twine I refer to above. I invite anyone interested to continue this aspect of this conversation here.
 
 Kurt, I have manually included the link to the twine I refer to above. I invite anyone interested to continue this aspect of this conversation here.
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - glenn mcdonald
 
 17 months ago
 
 OK, I'm going to ask this question here because I can't figure out where else to ask it. Actually, that's the question itself! Where's the "there" in a twine? Daniel's Global Collaboration Environments twine sets out a three-step plan in its description: define, discuss, make a plan. But am I missing something obvious, or is the only forum for conversation the comment-threads attached to invididual bookmarks? Not that conversations around bookmarks are bad, but I assume nobody seriously believes that they are, in themselves, what we mean by "tie it all together". I can't even figure out how to add an "item" that isn't a bookmark, although the UI seems to hint that this is possible. And if this is a semantic web app, shouldn't there be some way for me to add some actual information, rather than just references to other (non-semantic) information?
 
 OK, I'm going to ask this question here because I can't figure out where else to ask it. Actually, that's the question itself! Where's the "there" in a twine? Daniel's Global Collaboration Environments twine sets out a three-step plan in its description: define, discuss, make a plan. But am I missing something obvious, or is the only forum for conversation the comment-threads attached to invididual bookmarks? Not that conversations around bookmarks are bad, but I assume nobody seriously believes that they are, in themselves, what we mean by "tie it all together". I can't even figure out how to add an "item" that isn't a bookmark, although the UI seems to hint that this is possible. And if this is a semantic web app, shouldn't there be some way for me to add some actual information, rather than just references to other (non-semantic) information?
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - 16 months ago
 
 It certainly seems that way. I've found it easiest to add bookmarks because of the Twine This+ bookmarklet. Notes seem prevalent, too, and I'm not sure really how much use a lot of the other types will prove. For instance, why place a review here versus in Amazon or another online book club. It would make more sense to be able to tie into that conversation through Twine rather than start it or re-create it here. Twine is only a semantic app in that it currently only helps you add prescribed Semantic Web data. Maybe the API will allow interaction with the outside world.
 
 It certainly seems that way. I've found it easiest to add bookmarks because of the Twine This+ bookmarklet. Notes seem prevalent, too, and I'm not sure really how much use a lot of the other types will prove. For instance, why place a review here versus in Amazon or another online book club. It would make more sense to be able to tie into that conversation through Twine rather than start it or re-create it here. Twine is only a semantic app in that it currently only helps you add prescribed Semantic Web data. Maybe the API will allow interaction with the outside world.
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
 - James Choate
 
 17 months ago
 
 To add a non-bookmark item click add item and pick 'note' or 'document' or whatever. I'd suggest simply go down the list and get used to the format of each one (there is a cancel at the bottom so you can rollback with no commit).
 
 As to the 'there' or 'here', there isn't one. There is no central concept or prefered frame of reference. My approach is I build my personal twine SSZ and then dump whatever interests me, or that might come in handy for future reference. It's a big generic 'in box'. At some point I hope the tools get to the point that I can add structure by adding twines under twines. When that happens what you'll see in SSZ is a pile of general input and then a set of category or topic twines the things get sorted into. From there, if the input/output aspect of twines improves I hope there will be agents with an agenda I can turn loose on them.
 
 At this point I don't think the technology will allow you to tie it together because there still needs to be a level of indirection with respect to organising and 'processing' (ie join/merge/branch) twines.
 
 To add a non-bookmark item click add item and pick 'note' or 'document' or whatever. I'd suggest simply go down the list and get used to the format of each one (there is a cancel at the bottom so you can rollback with no commit). As to the 'there' or 'here', there isn't one. There is no central concept or prefered frame of reference. My approach is I build my personal twine SSZ and then dump whatever interests me, or that might come in handy for future reference. It's a big generic 'in box'. At some point I hope the tools get to the point that I can add structure by adding twines under twines. When that happens what you'll see in SSZ is a pile of general input and then a set of category or topic twines the things get sorted into. From there, if the input/output aspect of twines improves I hope there will be agents with an agenda I can turn loose on them. At this point I don't think the technology will allow you to tie it together because there still needs to be a level of indirection with respect to organising and 'processing' (ie join/merge/branch) twines.
 Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

Adding a "document" or "note" misses the point entirely. The thing we're supposed to be trying to do, all of us who are working on what has been called the Semantic Web, is bring machine-understandability to the granularity of data and specific relationships, not documents and generic links. "Smarter" generic "tagging" of documents is totally, painfully, embarrassingly not the change we're trying to bring about.

As for the no "there", this is an unrelated but equally clear failing. If you want groups to collaborate, by which I mean accomplish anything coherent and lasting, rather than just bantering and intermingling their link-streams, you need to give them some place in which to build things. Lists, databases, discussions that rise above the individual transient provocations, processes, roles. Entity-extraction doesn't change any of those human needs or problems.

Adding a "document" or "note" misses the point entirely. The thing we're supposed to be trying to do, all of us who are working on what has been called the Semantic Web, is bring machine-understandability to the granularity of data and specific relationships, not documents and generic links. "Smarter" generic "tagging" of documents is totally, painfully, embarrassingly not the change we're trying to bring about. As for the no "there", this is an unrelated but equally clear failing. If you want groups to collaborate, by which I mean accomplish anything coherent and lasting, rather than just bantering and intermingling their link-streams, you need to give them some place in which to build things. Lists, databases, discussions that rise above the individual transient provocations, processes, roles. Entity-extraction doesn't change any of those human needs or problems.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

James Choate

17 months ago

"Adding a "document" or "note" misses the point entirely..."Smarter" generic "tagging" of documents is totally, painfully, embarrassingly not the change we're trying to bring about."

I'm with you there brother!

"As for the no "there", this is an unrelated but equally clear failing...give them some place in which to build things"

I agree, I've made comments about ways to address different aspects of that issue in different places. I'm not sure it's worth repeating here at this time.

"Adding a "document" or "note" misses the point entirely..."Smarter" generic "tagging" of documents is totally, painfully, embarrassingly not the change we're trying to bring about." I'm with you there brother! "As for the no "there", this is an unrelated but equally clear failing...give them some place in which to build things" I agree, I've made comments about ways to address different aspects of that issue in different places. I'm not sure it's worth repeating here at this time.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
Kurt Laitner

17 months ago

ok, you've got my attention (for a very short while given the medium), is there a solution being proposed here?

ok, you've got my attention (for a very short while given the medium), is there a solution being proposed here?
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

Solutions. So it seems to me that the main thing Twine should be focused on is allowing people to collaboratively define and build sets of semantically-structured data. A "twine" should be just that: a little data-model iteratively designed by the twine's members to represent some actual knowledge (not just link to it elsewhere), and then populated with bits of that knowledge. Bent's idea of "datapad for the masses" in comment 32, is probably a level too low ("encoding" is a good trigger-word to tell you you've slipped into technical implementation minutiae, below the level of the motivating human problem), but it gets at the right idea.

Take, for example, Twain's "Terminology" twine introduced in comment 19. A twine, in its current state, is going to do an awful job of addressing the very simple goal Twain states for this one: "be populated with obscuratum phrases which we have to find definitions for and inter-link". To actually do this, rather than allude to it, you (the group of people interested in terminology) need to be able to define a little schema for terminology. There's a "term", which links to one or more "definition", or probably more usefully a "definition in context" (which also links to a context). A definition-in-context can link to 0 or more "correct uses" and 0 or more "incorrect uses", both of which types are references (URLs, literally). This requires no entailment or transitive closure or Cyc-traversing, but would get at some very useful stuff. For instance, for a given term you could look for other terms used in the same correct/incorrect places, and see if those other terms are defined in contexts for which the first term is not. You could see documents that have a mixture of correct and incorrect uses and see if those two sets align to the same contexts or different ones, which tells you something about the document but potentially even more about your definitions and contexts. List terms by context, list contexts that share terms, etc.

Making a "place" for this collaboration to happen is a separate set of work. In my previous life I was the designer of eRoom, which for a while (1997-2003, perhaps) was arguably the state-of-the-art in self-managed team-collaboration software. It's development was arrested by corporate acquisition, and hasn't evolved to account for the rise of wikis since I stopped working on it, but even after 5 years of mostly negligence its basic principles stand up pretty well:

- team workspace with self-management of all content and membership
- arbitrary folder/item structure to suit any subdivisions of work (i.e. organization by actual content needs, not by item type)
- super-easy UI for creating, using and dynamically modifying little databases with user-centric data-types (i.e., fields like "due date", "discussion thread" and "status flag", rather than "double" and "long" and "floating-point")
- discussions both as annotations on other item types and as first-class items themselves (Twine lacks the latter, and arguably if it could have only one it should have been the latter)
- integral, ubiquitous change-tracking, notification and unread

A wiki gives you more flexibility, but requires the group to know/develop/use their own discipline to keep things manageable, and most wikis suck at discussions and don't do real data structures. The Semantic MediaWiki project a couple years ago started to try to implement semantic annotation in the MediaWiki/Wikipedia context, but concentrated (it seems to me) too narrowly on wiki-embedding syntax, leaving the interesting issues of schema creation/iteration/collaboration/communication unfortunately aside.

It takes a lot of work to do virtual workplaces really well, but I think Twine has to at least make a start: allow a twine to have substructure according to its actual needs (including the structured data, and discussions both on other items and on their own), and then work on a good, smart, shared* front-page that shows off Twine's intelligence to help the group understand what it is they've done and learned and are doing next.

*Shared experience should have shared structure. Or, the other way around, shared structure creates shared experience. This matters all the way down to UI details like the threaded/flat switch Twine has on these discussions. It should be eliminated! The damage to discussion coherence caused by different participants seeing and thus understanding the same discussion differently overwhelms any advantage gained by catering to people who prefer one model or the other. Hugely better to pick one format and go with it. And even more hugely better if you pick the flat one...

Solutions. So it seems to me that the main thing Twine should be focused on is allowing people to collaboratively define and build sets of semantically-structured data. A "twine" should be just that: a little data-model iteratively designed by the twine's members to represent some actual knowledge (not just link to it elsewhere), and then populated with bits of that knowledge. Bent's idea of "datapad for the masses" in comment 32, is probably a level too low ("encoding" is a good trigger-word to tell you you've slipped into technical implementation minutiae, below the level of the motivating human problem), but it gets at the right idea. Take, for example, Twain's "Terminology" twine introduced in comment 19. A twine, in its current state, is going to do an awful job of addressing the very simple goal Twain states for this one: "be populated with obscuratum phrases which we have to find definitions for and inter-link". To actually do this, rather than allude to it, you (the group of people interested in terminology) need to be able to define a little schema for terminology. There's a "term", which links to one or more "definition", or probably more usefully a "definition in context" (which also links to a context). A definition-in-context can link to 0 or more "correct uses" and 0 or more "incorrect uses", both of which types are references (URLs, literally). This requires no entailment or transitive closure or Cyc-traversing, but would get at some very useful stuff. For instance, for a given term you could look for other terms used in the same correct/incorrect places, and see if those other terms are defined in contexts for which the first term is not. You could see documents that have a mixture of correct and incorrect uses and see if those two sets align to the same contexts or different ones, which tells you something about the document but potentially even more about your definitions and contexts. List terms by context, list contexts that share terms, etc. Making a "place" for this collaboration to happen is a separate set of work. In my previous life I was the designer of eRoom, which for a while (1997-2003, perhaps) was arguably the state-of-the-art in self-managed team-collaboration software. It's development was arrested by corporate acquisition, and hasn't evolved to account for the rise of wikis since I stopped working on it, but even after 5 years of mostly negligence its basic principles stand up pretty well: - team workspace with self-management of all content and membership - arbitrary folder/item structure to suit any subdivisions of work (i.e. organization by actual content needs, not by item type) - super-easy UI for creating, using and dynamically modifying little databases with user-centric data-types (i.e., fields like "due date", "discussion thread" and "status flag", rather than "double" and "long" and "floating-point") - discussions both as annotations on other item types and as first-class items themselves (Twine lacks the latter, and arguably if it could have only one it should have been the latter) - integral, ubiquitous change-tracking, notification and unread A wiki gives you more flexibility, but requires the group to know/develop/use their own discipline to keep things manageable, and most wikis suck at discussions and don't do real data structures. The Semantic MediaWiki project a couple years ago started to try to implement semantic annotation in the MediaWiki/Wikipedia context, but concentrated (it seems to me) too narrowly on wiki-embedding syntax, leaving the interesting issues of schema creation/iteration/collaboration/communication unfortunately aside. It takes a lot of work to do virtual workplaces really well, but I think Twine has to at least make a start: allow a twine to have substructure according to its actual needs (including the structured data, and discussions both on other items and on their own), and then work on a good, smart, shared* front-page that shows off Twine's intelligence to help the group understand what it is they've done and learned and are doing next. *Shared experience should have shared structure. Or, the other way around, shared structure creates shared experience. This matters all the way down to UI details like the threaded/flat switch Twine has on these discussions. It should be eliminated! The damage to discussion coherence caused by different participants seeing and thus understanding the same discussion differently overwhelms any advantage gained by catering to people who prefer one model or the other. Hugely better to pick one format and go with it. And even more hugely better if you pick the flat one...

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

16 months ago

eRoom, yes, that was a great technology. I used that briefly before my first job change. You're quite right, the organization was really nice and very intuitive. I think it would certainly help Twine as a collaboration platform, but is that Twine's goal? "Tying it all together" can mean so many things. Allowing discussions to be first-class citizens would be terrific, especially if that discussion could be from elsewhere, on another Twine or an external site. If Twine wants to tie it all together, it should really tie it all together, no matter where the content resides.

eRoom, yes, that was a great technology. I used that briefly before my first job change. You're quite right, the organization was really nice and very intuitive. I think it would certainly help Twine as a collaboration platform, but is that Twine's goal? "Tying it all together" can mean so many things. Allowing discussions to be first-class citizens would be terrific, especially if that discussion could be from elsewhere, on another Twine or an external site. If Twine wants to tie it all together, it should really tie it all together, no matter where the content resides.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

Glenn, your last comment is converging on exactly what I was getting at months ago when my fellow Twinerians inspired me to start the Global Collaboration Environment twine. A project manager, for example, would appreciate a single window, where he/she could gain a bird's eye view of the collaboration project. A quick scan would reveal key participants and their roles, Ganntt-style time plans, subprojects, deliverables, urgent items, progress (accomplishments), potential issues, assigned tasks and due dates, etc. Instead of using clunky email to communicate with members of the team, threaded discussions could be used to maintain communication with the team. All shared documents like time plans, specifications, drawings, cost sheets, demand forecasts, etc. could be easily found by all team members with permission.
I think your last post might make a good note to post on the Global Collaboration Environment twine. And to see where that goes.
Ultimately, if I understand, I agree that different teams / users should select from a handful of collaboration environments depending on the goal of the twine or collaboration environment. And then working within that environment collaborate. Artists, technical project managers, engineers, designers, executives, finanical analysts ... each may prefer a different type of environment.

Glenn, your last comment is converging on exactly what I was getting at months ago when my fellow Twinerians inspired me to start the Global Collaboration Environment twine. A project manager, for example, would appreciate a single window, where he/she could gain a bird's eye view of the collaboration project. A quick scan would reveal key participants and their roles, Ganntt-style time plans, subprojects, deliverables, urgent items, progress (accomplishments), potential issues, assigned tasks and due dates, etc. Instead of using clunky email to communicate with members of the team, threaded discussions could be used to maintain communication with the team. All shared documents like time plans, specifications, drawings, cost sheets, demand forecasts, etc. could be easily found by all team members with permission. I think your last post might make a good note to post on the Global Collaboration Environment twine. And to see where that goes. Ultimately, if I understand, I agree that different teams / users should select from a handful of collaboration environments depending on the goal of the twine or collaboration environment. And then working within that environment collaborate. Artists, technical project managers, engineers, designers, executives, finanical analysts ... each may prefer a different type of environment.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

frank smith

17 months ago

I tried sharing this comment with connections, which worked fine but I feel like reposting what I said to this thread directly.

I scanned the article and...

So, I thought I'd put my 2¢ in.

I scanned the article and I really have only one thing to say that is relevant.

In my experience, the most common use the word 'semantic' general population is, "Now you're just arguing semantics!" The fact that society has allowed the word semantic to become loaded with negative connotations, is no reason to stop the attempt at educating people to the true meaning of the word, and value of the concept.

It may be that were approaching a time when a sizable portion of the population is willing to learn about real semantics.

If people have tools that use semantics efficiently, I believe they will begin to have a positive definition of word.

Keeping twining!!

I tried sharing this comment with connections, which worked fine but I feel like reposting what I said to this thread directly. I scanned the article and... So, I thought I'd put my 2¢ in. I scanned the article and I really have only one thing to say that is relevant. In my experience, the most common use the word 'semantic' general population is, "Now you're just arguing semantics!" The fact that society has allowed the word semantic to become loaded with negative connotations, is no reason to stop the attempt at educating people to the true meaning of the word, and value of the concept. It may be that were approaching a time when a sizable portion of the population is willing to learn about real semantics. If people have tools that use semantics efficiently, I believe they will begin to have a positive definition of word. Keeping twining!!

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

Does that mean we are not allowed to comment on how Twine works unless we are prepared to fix it or develop our own app.?
They didn't tell me that was what beta testing meant, THAT is serious.

Does that mean we are not allowed to comment on how Twine works unless we are prepared to fix it or develop our own app.? They didn't tell me that was what beta testing meant, THAT is serious.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

Too slow on the comments again.

Twain you could so write that, and it would be fine so long as you didn't suggest (whether deliberately or by accident/inference) that meant you fully understood how he did it and/or were especially qualified to do something similar because you happened to be there at the time. I know I a being a little petty but usually people who I meet that are very talented in multiple fields don't tell me about it, I just discover it. Perhaps I am just jealous.....

Too slow on the comments again. Twain you could so write that, and it would be fine so long as you didn't suggest (whether deliberately or by accident/inference) that meant you fully understood how he did it and/or were especially qualified to do something similar because you happened to be there at the time. I know I a being a little petty but usually people who I meet that are very talented in multiple fields don't tell me about it, I just discover it. Perhaps I am just jealous.....

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

Oh flip my comment to a comment is two above this ;) by now.

Twain you seem to have forgotten option (3.) Use Twine as a glorified resource store, and go off and develop or use something else.

As for self-promotion based on all the accumulated information I have gleaned from your comments so far you seem to have all the knowledge, proven skills and experience to spec. up the semantic web, implement it, slap an interface over it, market it, script the film and kids book in five or more languages, within the next week or so. Give me a shout and I'll help you test it.

Oh flip my comment to a comment is two above this ;) by now. Twain you seem to have forgotten option (3.) Use Twine as a glorified resource store, and go off and develop or use something else. As for self-promotion based on all the accumulated information I have gleaned from your comments so far you seem to have all the knowledge, proven skills and experience to spec. up the semantic web, implement it, slap an interface over it, market it, script the film and kids book in five or more languages, within the next week or so. Give me a shout and I'll help you test it.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

17 months ago

You don't need to provide workable alternatives to suggest an approach is wrong,

I am quite busy enough for now, and I am sure there are plenty of people who comment more than I do. Why would I want to define an alternative to those things? They serve a purpose.

Participating in this discussion has taught me enough to have made it worthwhile, I now have Feynman and have a better way to articulate a couple of ideas I already had for starters.

You don't need to provide workable alternatives to suggest an approach is wrong, I am quite busy enough for now, and I am sure there are plenty of people who comment more than I do. Why would I want to define an alternative to those things? They serve a purpose. Participating in this discussion has taught me enough to have made it worthwhile, I now have Feynman and have a better way to articulate a couple of ideas I already had for starters.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

16 months ago

I do intend to play with it, I have already started slowly loading it with stuff that interests me.

I was just a little shocked that there was so much emphasis on the lighter aspects of the post that we were commenting on and so little on weightier elements.

Without offering a fully realized alternative, I am (and I think one or two others) suggesting that the current approach of increasingly describing and linking things (mostly by human effort) will do wonders for extending the utility and dimensions of what we used to call a "card index", the best that we can hope for is that computers increasingly link more stuff for us (at a fairly trivial level). I don't see how it will get realize the vague promises of a fully semantic web.

Just because it is easy in the short term to make measurable progress doesn't mean it is right. It was easy to keep developing internal combustion engines that ran on fossil fuels at the expense of other technologies and look where that got us.

I do intend to play with it, I have already started slowly loading it with stuff that interests me. I was just a little shocked that there was so much emphasis on the lighter aspects of the post that we were commenting on and so little on weightier elements. Without offering a fully realized alternative, I am (and I think one or two others) suggesting that the current approach of increasingly describing and linking things (mostly by human effort) will do wonders for extending the utility and dimensions of what we used to call a "card index", the best that we can hope for is that computers increasingly link more stuff for us (at a fairly trivial level). I don't see how it will get realize the vague promises of a fully semantic web. Just because it is easy in the short term to make measurable progress doesn't mean it is right. It was easy to keep developing internal combustion engines that ran on fossil fuels at the expense of other technologies and look where that got us.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

16 months ago

"lighter" and "weightier" are completely meaningless the way you've used them as they are based on your own perspective without any way of showing why you think so. To stick to your car analogy, you could create an amazing engine, but if you forget the steering wheel and wheels, no one's going to use it because they can't. If you want a completely machine-driven semantic web, go read a science fiction novel. It may eventually come, but it's not here yet, nor was it promised. If your expectations were otherwise, I completely understand, but that doesn't mean that Twine isn't worth pursuing. It just needs a steering wheel and wheels, which may mean additional technology under the hood, like power steering.

"lighter" and "weightier" are completely meaningless the way you've used them as they are based on your own perspective without any way of showing why you think so. To stick to your car analogy, you could create an amazing engine, but if you forget the steering wheel and wheels, no one's going to use it because they can't. If you want a completely machine-driven semantic web, go read a science fiction novel. It may eventually come, but it's not here yet, nor was it promised. If your expectations were otherwise, I completely understand, but that doesn't mean that Twine isn't worth pursuing. It just needs a steering wheel and wheels, which may mean additional technology under the hood, like power steering.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

16 months ago

@frank btw no offense taken, I think that comments and discussion should naturally generate some friction and tension, otherwise
you are just chewing the fat with like-minded people. Eventually you either change you mind or go off and do what you think is right.
People who haven't made up their mind yet maybe have most to gain.

@frank btw no offense taken, I think that comments and discussion should naturally generate some friction and tension, otherwise you are just chewing the fat with like-minded people. Eventually you either change you mind or go off and do what you think is right. People who haven't made up their mind yet maybe have most to gain.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

frank smith

16 months ago

good to know hucheng,

I am always cautious with critique, as some people have a knee jerk response to it. I am SO glad that you are not that kind of people!!

NO real solutions come from yeaysaying.

good to know hucheng, I am always cautious with critique, as some people have a knee jerk response to it. I am SO glad that you are not that kind of people!! NO real solutions come from yeaysaying.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

James Lazo

16 months ago

Awesome discussion. This froth seems mighty meaty to me. It's great to see the finer points surrounding semantic web debated.

Awesome discussion. This froth seems mighty meaty to me. It's great to see the finer points surrounding semantic web debated.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

You'd think so, yeah. I thought Twine was finally going to be one of them. Freebase is one, but making one big shared object-database of everything is a very different task than letting individual people build little databases of things they care about. Twine could do for personal information what Freebase does for shared global data.

You'd think so, yeah. I thought Twine was finally going to be one of them. Freebase is one, but making one big shared object-database of everything is a very different task than letting individual people build little databases of things they care about. Twine could do for personal information what Freebase does for shared global data.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

Is it? Isn't Wikipedia/DBpedia just a collection of a lot of peoples ideas about how and what things are? Twine is just taking it to the next level, making it possible to describe things at a more granular level - if through a limited fixed set of primitives (types) atm. Powerset is going way further in trying to make sense out of what has been written in natural language. In the end, maybe a hybrid is needed. Let a hundred flowers bloom...

I hope in the future that everything will be about higher-level reasoning and presentation. We'll have a sort of P2P for knowledge and everything else will be built on it.

Is it? Isn't Wikipedia/DBpedia just a collection of a lot of peoples ideas about how and what things are? Twine is just taking it to the next level, making it possible to describe things at a more granular level - if through a limited fixed set of primitives (types) atm. Powerset is going way further in trying to make sense out of what has been written in natural language. In the end, maybe a hybrid is needed. Let a hundred flowers bloom... I hope in the future that everything will be about higher-level reasoning and presentation. We'll have a sort of P2P for knowledge and everything else will be built on it.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Mills Davis

17 months ago

I have to admit, I no longer really worry about someone who critiques "semantic web." Dean and Jim have done an elegant job for "practicioners." Proof cases for the masses, however, are the only things that really matter. Just show me something done with semantic technologies that I care about. The rest is easy.

I have to admit, I no longer really worry about someone who critiques "semantic web." Dean and Jim have done an elegant job for "practicioners." Proof cases for the masses, however, are the only things that really matter. Just show me something done with semantic technologies that I care about. The rest is easy.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Daniel Feldman

16 months ago

Glenn, yours is indeed "a tall, but noble order". But it is precisely what I seek as well. Let's go with your goal (our goal) here for the sake of argument. First, you (we) have to define what you (we) mean by "human understanding". This may be too general of a goal to define precisely. So, if failing a concise and clear definition of "human understanding", we may have to make the goal more specific. We have to reduce the problem down to its simplest components without changing its nature, and then we can either find its solution or determine that it is intractable. My intuition informs me that "human understanding" may be too broad of a problem with which to begin. We might ask, what would be the most straightforward way in which an idiot savant like a computer could be used to assist a human in acquiring, retaining, assimilating and recalling information for the purpose of productive, innovating and creative output? This is still a tall order, since it contains a lot of terms which must be further defined for the purposes of developing code, yet it frames the "human understanding" problem into tasks which a machine could be conceived to help. I have recently been looking into Wozniak's SuperMemo and I think this sort of tool can better develop "human understanding" than Twine. But then again, this is all debatable because we must first define our terms, for example, what do we mean by "human understanding"?

Glenn, yours is indeed "a tall, but noble order". But it is precisely what I seek as well. Let's go with your goal (our goal) here for the sake of argument. First, you (we) have to define what you (we) mean by "human understanding". This may be too general of a goal to define precisely. So, if failing a concise and clear definition of "human understanding", we may have to make the goal more specific. We have to reduce the problem down to its simplest components without changing its nature, and then we can either find its solution or determine that it is intractable. My intuition informs me that "human understanding" may be too broad of a problem with which to begin. We might ask, what would be the most straightforward way in which an idiot savant like a computer could be used to assist a human in acquiring, retaining, assimilating and recalling information for the purpose of productive, innovating and creative output? This is still a tall order, since it contains a lot of terms which must be further defined for the purposes of developing code, yet it frames the "human understanding" problem into tasks which a machine could be conceived to help. I have recently been looking into Wozniak's SuperMemo and I think this sort of tool can better develop "human understanding" than Twine. But then again, this is all debatable because we must first define our terms, for example, what do we mean by "human understanding"?

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Daniel Feldman

16 months ago

Databases regardless of granularity only hold data, they do not in and of themselves improve "human understanding". Making connections between these datapoints at higher levels of semantic abstraction are a start in the right direction, but they in and of themselves do not improve human understanding. The work of improving human understanding must ultimately occur within ourselves, unless of course you are considering implanting the machine into a human brain.
Improving human understanding will be informed by neuroscience, sleep research, memory research, creativity research, multidisciplinary sensory input and experience, travel and interaction with other cultures and languages.... If one's goal is increased "human understanding" one must discipline oneself to walk on the edge, to push oneself to experience and learn new things ... the individual must do the hard work themself. The computer can assist with information acquisition by locating relevant data, but the individual must do the heavy lifting, not the machine. The goal should not be an organic biped with an encyclopedic recall, but a sentient being with vast capabilities to learn, adapt, innovate and foresee ... visionary wisdom.

Databases regardless of granularity only hold data, they do not in and of themselves improve "human understanding". Making connections between these datapoints at higher levels of semantic abstraction are a start in the right direction, but they in and of themselves do not improve human understanding. The work of improving human understanding must ultimately occur within ourselves, unless of course you are considering implanting the machine into a human brain. Improving human understanding will be informed by neuroscience, sleep research, memory research, creativity research, multidisciplinary sensory input and experience, travel and interaction with other cultures and languages.... If one's goal is increased "human understanding" one must discipline oneself to walk on the edge, to push oneself to experience and learn new things ... the individual must do the hard work themself. The computer can assist with information acquisition by locating relevant data, but the individual must do the heavy lifting, not the machine. The goal should not be an organic biped with an encyclopedic recall, but a sentient being with vast capabilities to learn, adapt, innovate and foresee ... visionary wisdom.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

The database engines are starting slowly to help with understanding. See Oracle's RDF/OWL support.

The database engines are starting slowly to help with understanding. See Oracle's RDF/OWL support.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

James Lazo

16 months ago

Glenn,

Do I understand you correctly to mean you're looking for a means (besides tagging) to help Twine help yourself by processing these items into a greater body of knowledge? Perhaps some kind of platform within each twine to operate from?

If this is in line with what you're saying, I do find twines to be pretty decentralized. But I have to admit I'm still warming up to the twine system and I'm floundering as I learn to navigate / share / create.

Glenn, Do I understand you correctly to mean you're looking for a means (besides tagging) to help Twine help yourself by processing these items into a greater body of knowledge? Perhaps some kind of platform within each twine to operate from? If this is in line with what you're saying, I do find twines to be pretty decentralized. But I have to admit I'm still warming up to the twine system and I'm floundering as I learn to navigate / share / create.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

Just to be clear, I don't think the computer needs to understand the concept of "human understanding", or have "intuition", any more than the house-building hammer needs to feel empathy or understand what it's like for a person to curl up in a cozy den on a winter night. I think the real problems we should be solving are all about data structures. The "revolution" we're embarking on is actually a pretty mundane matter of database technologies, and not even really a scientific challenge, let alone an existential one. In the same way that faster processors once allowed us to move from block-font scrolling single-task text interfaces to graphical multi-task windowing environments, advances in speed and capacity now allow us to move from fixed-schema SQL tables as our basic data-storage building-block (with all the artificial constraints it imposes on querying) to dynamically-structured, fully-object-oriented networks of nodes and relationships, and query languages suited to traversing those networks. Even the linking part of LinkedData is secondary, at best. Structuring data according to its full connectedness will also make it more *linkable*, but is better for any individual dataset whether it's connected to anything else or not.

A noble order? Maybe. But not a tall one. It only seems tall because we keep balancing these enormous inane headdresses on top of it.

Just to be clear, I don't think the computer needs to understand the concept of "human understanding", or have "intuition", any more than the house-building hammer needs to feel empathy or understand what it's like for a person to curl up in a cozy den on a winter night. I think the real problems we should be solving are all about data structures. The "revolution" we're embarking on is actually a pretty mundane matter of database technologies, and not even really a scientific challenge, let alone an existential one. In the same way that faster processors once allowed us to move from block-font scrolling single-task text interfaces to graphical multi-task windowing environments, advances in speed and capacity now allow us to move from fixed-schema SQL tables as our basic data-storage building-block (with all the artificial constraints it imposes on querying) to dynamically-structured, fully-object-oriented networks of nodes and relationships, and query languages suited to traversing those networks. Even the linking part of LinkedData is secondary, at best. Structuring data according to its full connectedness will also make it more *linkable*, but is better for any individual dataset whether it's connected to anything else or not. A noble order? Maybe. But not a tall one. It only seems tall because we keep balancing these enormous inane headdresses on top of it.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

pomlover

16 months ago

Data structure and database system theory & technology has been around for a very, very long time. If the revolution is just "a pretty mundane matter of DB technologies" don't you think that at least one or more smart companies would have come up with a highly profitable and useful solution to the "structuring data according to its full connectedness" problem?

Data structure and database system theory & technology has been around for a very, very long time. If the revolution is just "a pretty mundane matter of DB technologies" don't you think that at least one or more smart companies would have come up with a highly profitable and useful solution to the "structuring data according to its full connectedness" problem?
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

James-

I'm not necessarily even trying to "process" these items! I'm trying to build bodies of knowledge, which are almost invariably made up of data at a lower granularity than anything I can bookmark. I want to build a linked database of digital camera information, for example, not just a tagged vat of web pages *about* digital cameras...

James- I'm not necessarily even trying to "process" these items! I'm trying to build bodies of knowledge, which are almost invariably made up of data at a lower granularity than anything I can bookmark. I want to build a linked database of digital camera information, for example, not just a tagged vat of web pages *about* digital cameras...

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

James Choate

16 months ago

'to build' is 'to process'.

'to build' is 'to process'.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
16 months ago

Now that is an excellent point. I've been looking through the now defunct Structured Blogging plugin for WordPress, thinking how to resurrect it to create types that can then be used and re-used in other posts or links. The real trick for that, Twine, or any other publishing platform is to allow users to create and/or customize types to fit their needs.

Now that is an excellent point. I've been looking through the now defunct Structured Blogging plugin for WordPress, thinking how to resurrect it to create types that can then be used and re-used in other posts or links. The real trick for that, Twine, or any other publishing platform is to allow users to create and/or customize types to fit their needs.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

16 months ago

Still processing all the information in this thread however.

The original post was understood and interpreted in a variety of different ways by human beings. Many people undoubtedly formed different opinions overtime too. The post was then followed by a host of comments that contained a whole bunch of interesting viewpoints, information, ideas etc,
This post has the single tag "semantic web" errrr right can't argue with that but somewhat lacking.

How long would it take for the whole bunch of us to tag this up to represent all the goodies it contains? Is this even possible how ever long we take? Some of the comments are little treasures in themselves can I tag those? even if I could how much more time?

This is why I think that tagging and microformats etc, are just extensions of the "card index". Useful yes, but I have to agree with anyone who thinks they are a blind alley if you have lofty goals. Even though I not convinced (yet) by what Glenn suggests is the best approach.

To address the notion that we should all buckle down and muck in (or refrain from criticism), I think that to make a worthwhile impact in this field you are going to have to think like someone who can make a worthwhile impact on this field and that (if achievable) is going to take time and reflection. Be assured that if I ever get to that point I would be itching to start codiing. In the meanwhile is being prepared to play and comment (fearlessly, even if in danger of appearing foolish) an unworthy contribution?

Still processing all the information in this thread however. The original post was understood and interpreted in a variety of different ways by human beings. Many people undoubtedly formed different opinions overtime too. The post was then followed by a host of comments that contained a whole bunch of interesting viewpoints, information, ideas etc, This post has the single tag "semantic web" errrr right can't argue with that but somewhat lacking. How long would it take for the whole bunch of us to tag this up to represent all the goodies it contains? Is this even possible how ever long we take? Some of the comments are little treasures in themselves can I tag those? even if I could how much more time? This is why I think that tagging and microformats etc, are just extensions of the "card index". Useful yes, but I have to agree with anyone who thinks they are a blind alley if you have lofty goals. Even though I not convinced (yet) by what Glenn suggests is the best approach. To address the notion that we should all buckle down and muck in (or refrain from criticism), I think that to make a worthwhile impact in this field you are going to have to think like someone who can make a worthwhile impact on this field and that (if achievable) is going to take time and reflection. Be assured that if I ever get to that point I would be itching to start codiing. In the meanwhile is being prepared to play and comment (fearlessly, even if in danger of appearing foolish) an unworthy contribution?

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

hucheng

16 months ago

Replies to replies are great but, I have to keep reading this thread through and through......................... wish technology could help me out here........

Replies to replies are great but, I have to keep reading this thread through and through......................... wish technology could help me out here........

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

johnrod

16 months ago

hucheng: Agreed.
The ability to extract a significant reply into an item and dangle the twines from that might be useful.
Sometimes replies go across threads because someone will have a context in mind as they respond to other twines.
If each reply was an item, then it would also be tagged and the initial instance would refer to the stimulus item on a twine and it would be linked to other related items and replies by graph or search. A fuzzy approach might use creation time to show a cluster of entries by a user during a time-period, e.g. 10 minutes, or an appropriate retention period.
Presumably the s/w can recognize the goldfish darting about and characterize what seems to attract multiple attention and free it from its stealth mode.
Terms may be originated in one place and picked up and distributed by users to others so the framework ontology would also be a way to illustrate this.
Twine as a whole is then processing what the school is interested in and learning about. Individuals might be loosely grouped by their response trigger, content, and type, so there may be an RDF-like mapping of a who-ontology.
Thanks.

hucheng: Agreed. The ability to extract a significant reply into an item and dangle the twines from that might be useful. Sometimes replies go across threads because someone will have a context in mind as they respond to other twines. If each reply was an item, then it would also be tagged and the initial instance would refer to the stimulus item on a twine and it would be linked to other related items and replies by graph or search. A fuzzy approach might use creation time to show a cluster of entries by a user during a time-period, e.g. 10 minutes, or an appropriate retention period. Presumably the s/w can recognize the goldfish darting about and characterize what seems to attract multiple attention and free it from its stealth mode. Terms may be originated in one place and picked up and distributed by users to others so the framework ontology would also be a way to illustrate this. Twine as a whole is then processing what the school is interested in and learning about. Individuals might be loosely grouped by their response trigger, content, and type, so there may be an RDF-like mapping of a who-ontology. Thanks.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

See, flat discussions are better. (See my note at the end of comment 43...) And unread-tracking, for that matter, is actually at least as valuable as "recommended items", perhaps more so.

See, flat discussions are better. (See my note at the end of comment 43...) And unread-tracking, for that matter, is actually at least as valuable as "recommended items", perhaps more so.
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
- James Lazo
  
  16 months ago
  
  I second unread-tracking. This could eliminate the major disadvantage of nesting, i.e. difficulty in keeping chronological track of comments. There are also a variety of flat / nesting hybrid options available.
  
  I second unread-tracking. This could eliminate the major disadvantage of nesting, i.e. difficulty in keeping chronological track of comments. There are also a variety of flat / nesting hybrid options available.
  Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web
  - 16 months ago
    
    +1 to unread-tracking
    
    +1 to unread-tracking
    Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

I'm saying that they're spending their time shining the wrong shoes. If the only tool you give people is "tagging", then yeah, you can't offer them much more than "er, maybe you'd have tagged this, too, if you'd known about it". But tagging is not the goal. Finding web-pages is not the goal. The goal is better human understanding. For this goal, tagging is way too crude a tool to begin with.

I'm saying that they're spending their time shining the wrong shoes. If the only tool you give people is "tagging", then yeah, you can't offer them much more than "er, maybe you'd have tagged this, too, if you'd known about it". But tagging is not the goal. Finding web-pages is not the goal. The goal is better human understanding. For this goal, tagging is way too crude a tool to begin with.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

pomlover

16 months ago

I think I follow you Glenn - yours is a tall, but noble, order indeed. Have any ideas about any other tools/techniques/mechanisms that would make machine "intuition" more realizeable? I don't have a klue so don't ask me :^)

I think I follow you Glenn - yours is a tall, but noble, order indeed. Have any ideas about any other tools/techniques/mechanisms that would make machine "intuition" more realizeable? I don't have a klue so don't ask me :^)
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

Twain suggested, a ways back, "leveraging the content in these [5 other] twines", and conceded that "TWINE should be recommending and informing me that these exist". But this is still missing the point. I don't care how good Twine's "recommended items" gets. The problems in my life, even just in my information life, are not a lack of "items".

And you can't use a lever without somewhere to stand. Where's the place to stand in Twine?

Twain suggested, a ways back, "leveraging the content in these [5 other] twines", and conceded that "TWINE should be recommending and informing me that these exist". But this is still missing the point. I don't care how good Twine's "recommended items" gets. The problems in my life, even just in my information life, are not a lack of "items". And you can't use a lever without somewhere to stand. Where's the place to stand in Twine?

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

pomlover

16 months ago

Hi Glenn,

Put yourself in Twine's shoes. A user logs into to you and you know and hold a lot of information that the user has added and/or tagged within you. What do you do next? Can you "intuit" what the user wants to do next? Should you put a high level dashboard in front of him/her to give him/her some grounding/context and hints on what to do next?

Hi Glenn, Put yourself in Twine's shoes. A user logs into to you and you know and hold a lot of information that the user has added and/or tagged within you. What do you do next? Can you "intuit" what the user wants to do next? Should you put a high level dashboard in front of him/her to give him/her some grounding/context and hints on what to do next?
Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

See also Jason Kolb's blog-post "What Can the Semantic Web Do for Me?, about the Semantic Web as databsae tech.

See also <a href="http://www.twine.com/item/117zjtz8r-9bc/what-can-the-semantic-web-do-for-me-from-jasonkolb-com-the-life-of-a-technology-entrepreneur" rel="nofollow">Jason Kolb's blog-post "What Can the Semantic Web Do for Me?</a>, about the Semantic Web as databsae tech.

Commented in: Web 3.0 - Semantic Web

HTML Tag	Attributes
<a href="URL"><a href="#">link</a></a>	'href', 'target', 'rel'
<strong>strong</strong>
<b>bold</b>
<blockquote> blockquote </blockquote>
<em>emphasis</em>
<i>italic</i>
<img src="URL">	'src', 'width', 'height', 'alt', 'title'
<u>underlined</u>
<s>~~strike~~</s>
<del>~~deleted~~</del>

Guest / Items

Never Mind the Semantic Web

Comments

Public Comments

Bent Rasmussen 17 months ago

17 months ago

facyla 17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 17 months ago

facyla 17 months ago

James Choate 17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 17 months ago

James Choate 17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

James Choate 16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

16 months ago

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

Nova Spivack 17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

Dean Allemang 17 months ago

Kurt Laitner 17 months ago

Jack D. Logan 17 months ago

Mark Davey 17 months ago

glenn mcdonald 17 months ago

17 months ago

Jack D. Logan 17 months ago

Daniel Feldman 17 months ago

16 months ago

Daniel Feldman 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

James Choate 17 months ago

16 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

James Choate 17 months ago

Daniel Feldman 17 months ago

Kurt Laitner 17 months ago

Daniel Feldman 17 months ago

glenn mcdonald 17 months ago

16 months ago

James Choate 17 months ago

glenn mcdonald 17 months ago

James Choate 17 months ago

Kurt Laitner 17 months ago

glenn mcdonald 17 months ago

16 months ago

Daniel Feldman 17 months ago

frank smith 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

hucheng 17 months ago

hucheng 16 months ago

16 months ago

hucheng 16 months ago

frank smith 16 months ago

James Lazo 16 months ago

glenn mcdonald 16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

Mills Davis 17 months ago

Daniel Feldman 16 months ago

Daniel Feldman 16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen 16 months ago

James Lazo 16 months ago

glenn mcdonald 16 months ago

pomlover 16 months ago

glenn mcdonald 16 months ago

James Choate 16 months ago

16 months ago

hucheng 16 months ago

hucheng 16 months ago

johnrod 16 months ago

glenn mcdonald 16 months ago

James Lazo 16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

facyla

17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

facyla

17 months ago

James Choate

17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

James Choate

17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

James Choate

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

Nova Spivack

17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

Dean Allemang

17 months ago

Kurt Laitner

17 months ago

Jack D. Logan

17 months ago

Mark Davey

17 months ago

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

Jack D. Logan

17 months ago

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

James Choate

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

James Choate

17 months ago

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

Kurt Laitner

17 months ago

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

James Choate

17 months ago

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

James Choate

17 months ago

Kurt Laitner

17 months ago

glenn mcdonald

17 months ago

Daniel Feldman

17 months ago

frank smith

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

hucheng

17 months ago

hucheng

16 months ago

hucheng

16 months ago

frank smith

16 months ago

James Lazo

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

Mills Davis

17 months ago

Daniel Feldman

16 months ago

Daniel Feldman

16 months ago

Bent Rasmussen

16 months ago

James Lazo

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

pomlover

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

James Choate

16 months ago

hucheng

16 months ago

hucheng

16 months ago

johnrod

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

James Lazo

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

pomlover

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago

pomlover

16 months ago

glenn mcdonald

16 months ago