1. I’ve just listened to a great interview with Sir Tim Berners-Lee about the Semantic Web, recorded 7 February 2008. He gives so many examples of how it can be valuable and the underlying architecture that can makes it work.

    Sir Tim Berners-Lee talks about the semantic web

  2. If the semantic web was a reality it’d be incredibly useful. I won’t say we’ll never get there, but I will point out that so far people haven’t had the understanding, skill or attention to correctly use the existing semantic markup in HTML.

    So people either don’t understand even the most basic level of semantics; or they’re lazy; or both. So the semantic web has to fight one of the hardest things to fight: human nature combined with ignorance.

    If someone doesn’t know or care why h2 doesn’t mean “smaller than h1”, how likely is it that they’d write a document and add the required metatdata to disambiguate all the information? Exactly which John Smith were they talking about there? 🙂

    I think we’ll get something like the semantic web eventually. I’m really not sure how and I don’t think it’ll be quick. Unless people can make money off it, in which case the SEO consultants and spammers are likely to be onto it right quick…

  3. What Yahoo! is doing is a start. But for this to be REALLY useful, they have to add an API for their semantic web results.

    Say I’ve built a small program that pulls in hCalendar entries for all web events going on around Perth – my program should be able to act like a normal web user, and use the Yahoo! semantic search to find suitable hCalendar results.

    Do that, and we have a semantic web.

  4. I wrote the original post that Matthew Hodgson referred to in your blog. To me the semantic web is not a paradigm shift and shouldn’t be given the 3.0 label – it is as you and many others have stated an extension or more efficient data model.

    My original post here makes a clear distinction between 1,2 and 3. Web 1.0 is pushed/brochureware web. 2.0 is the asynchronous sharing web. 3.0 is the switch to ‘live’, always on, synchronous and more and more in ‘simulated’ and virtual spaces.

    The diagram on/and my post has more detail and it is really based on the growth, particularly in Generation Y and millenials, of isometric and 3D virtual spaces but also the movement towards instantaneous communication whether 3D game-like worlds or ubiquitous video comms.

Comments are now closed, move along, nothing to see here.