Web 2.0 and Beyond

November 22, 2008


In process . . .

Nova Spivack – Semantic Web Talk

Web 1.0  Worldwide Web

Web 2.0 Social Web

Web 3.0  Semantic Web

Web 4.0 Intelligent Web 

Nova Spivack – Semantic Web Talk from Nicolas Cynober on Vimeo.

see Nova Spivack’s blog here http://novaspivack.typepad.com/ 

See also Flemming Funch’s summary of http://ming.tv/flemming2.php/__show_article/_a000010-001918.htm Spivack’s presentation:

Nova Spivack has a nice video presentation, of the Semantic Web, and a suggestion of what would be called Web3.0 and Web4.0. For dummies. Well, for a group of French business school students, at least, but it means he explains it in simple terms. He labels Web1.0 as the “Worldwide Web”, Web2.0 as the “Social Web”, Web3.0 as the “Semantic Web”, and Web4.0 as the “Intelligent Web”. The graphic there is older than what he uses in the video, so the labels are a little different. Of course, since it hasn’t happened yet, nobody can be sure what it will be or what it will be called, but this makes very good sense. Particularly, it makes sense to plot it on such a graph, where the Y axis is connections between information, and the X axis is connections between people. Web 2.0 connects people and information pretty well, but it is based on relatively crude methods, such as matching people and information up based on keyword searches. The Semantic Web implies that information is encoded with metadata, so that for example a search for the animal “jaguar” is different from a search for “jaguar”, the car brand, or “jaguar”, a version of Mac OSX. I.e. the data is more structured, so you would be able to get more precise and appropriate answers to queries, and you can ask for more complicated stuff. In The Intelligent Web, it would all become an integrated whole, like an operating system. It wouldn’t matter where something is stored, by what program, on what server. It would be like “Computer, give me …”, and it will find it. And that this web would be more proactive in getting you stuff without you having to first ask for it. Of course that’s all rather fuzzy, and he places that in 2020-2030. And, of course, nobody has any real good answer to who’s going to encode everything with metadata for Web3.0, and nobody has invented anything that looks much like the Artificial Intelligence needed for Web4.0, so it is all up in the air. But it is a good and simple road map.”

Selected Webliography and Bibliography

Cardosa, Jorge. 2007. “The Semantic Web Vision: Where are We?” IEEE Intelligent Systems. September/October 2007, pp.22-26, 2007.

Levy, Pierre. “Opening the Semantic Space in the Service of Collective Intelligence: http://www.reciis.cict.fiocruz.br/index.php/reciis/article/viewPDFInterstitial/43/38

Levy, Pierre. 2007. “Elements of Semantic Engineering” Paper presented at WWW Consortium Conference held in Banff, Alberta: 

Zaino, Jennifer. 2007-10-22. “Radar’s Twine Ties the Semantic Web Together.” > semanticweb.com

Zaino, Jennifer. 2007-10-26. “A Snapshot of Semantic Web Trends.” semanticweb.com

Selected Timeline Related to What is being done in the name of Web 2.0, Web 3, Web 4

2007-10 A paper presented by PhD Jorge Cardoso of the Department of Mathematics and Engineering at the University of Madeira in Funchal, Portugal, “surveyed 627 participants between December [2006]and January [2007], based on 14 questions related to particular aspects of the semantic web and its technologies. The survey covered the following categories: tools and languages for building ontologies and the ontology languages used; ontology, which asked which domain or industry was affected, what methodology was used; and why and how to align and integrate ontologies; ontology size; and production, which looked into timeframes for developing ontologies and putting systems to work. [] When asked which method they used to develop ontologies, “We were overcome by the percentage of respondents (60 percent) that develop ontologies without using any methodology,” the author writes. Another surprising finding for the author is that “the ontologies being developed are much smaller in size than can be ascertained from many research papers and conference keynotes and talks.” According to the report, each respondent was asked to indicate the average size of the smallest, typical, and biggest ontologies they were working with. Nearly 75 percent said that their smallest ontologies had less than 100 concepts, and about 20 said they had between 100 and 1,000 concepts (Zaino 2007-10-26).”

2007 WWW Consortium Conference was held in Banff, Alberta.

2007-10-22 Radar founder and CEO Nova Spivack described Twine, his recently-made-public semantic web-based online service, as “a knowledge networking service, designed to help consumers, professionals and enterprises share, organize, and find information.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 57 other followers

%d bloggers like this: