Web 3.0, Social Semantic Web, Tom Gruber-Where the Social Web Meets the Semantic Web.

La evolución de la Web hacia lo 3.0 está en camino.

Link relacionado: Semantic Wave 2008 Report: Industry Roadmap to Web 3.0 and Multibillion Dollar Market Opportunities

Texto de la Presentación

Slide 1: Where the Social Web Meets the Semantic Web Tom Gruber RealTravel.com tomgruber.org

Slide 2: Doug Engelbart, 1968 “The grand challenge is to boost the collective IQ of organizations and of society. ”

Slide 3: Tim Berners-Lee, 2001 “The Semantic Web is not a separate Web but an extension of the current one, in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling computers and people to work in cooperation.” Scientific American, May 2001

Slide 4: Tim O’Reilly, 2006, on Web 2.0 “The central principle behind the success of the giants born in the Web 1.0 era who have survived to lead the Web 2.0 era appears to be this, that they have embraced the power of the web to harness collective intelligence”

Slide 5: Web 2.0 is about The Social Web “Web 2.0 Is Much More About A Change In People and Society Than Technology” -Dion Hinchcliffe, tech blogger  1 billion people connect to the Internet  100 million web sites  over a third of adults in US have contributed content to the public Internet. – 18% of adults over 65 source: Pew Internet and American Life Project via futureexpolporation.net diagram source: http://web2.wsj2.com/

Slide 6: Tim Berners-Lee, 5 days ago “The Web isn’t about what you can do with computers. It’s people and, yes, they are connected by computers. But computer science, as the study of what happens in a computer, doesn’t tell you about what happens on the Web.” NY Times, Nov 2, 2006

Slide 7: But what is “collective intelligence” in the social web sense?  intelligent collection?  collaborative bookmarking, searching  “database of intentions”  clicking, rating, tagging, buying  what we all know but hadn’t got around to saying in public before  blogs, wikis, discussion lists “database of intentions” – Tim O’Reilly

Slide 8: the wisdom of clouds? http://flickr.com/photos/tags/

Slide 9: “Collective Knowledge” Systems  The capacity to provide useful information  based on human contributions  which gets better as more people participate.  typically  mix of structured, machine-readable data and unstructured data from human input

Slide 10: Collective Knowledge is Real  FAQ-o-Sphere – self service Q&A forums  Citizen Journalism – “We the Media”  Product reviews for gadgets and hotels  Collaborative filtering for books and music  Amateur Academia

Slide 11: What about the Semantic Web?

Slide 12: Roles for Technology  capturing everything  storing everything  distributing everything  enabling many-to-many communication  creating value from the data

Slide 13: Potential Roles for Semantic Net Technology: Two examples  Composing and integrating user- contributed data across applications  example: tagging data  Creating aggregate value from a mix of structured and unstructured data  example: blogging data

Slide 14: “Ontology is overrated.” — Clay Shirky  “[tags] are a radical break with previous categorization strategies”  hierarchical, centrally controlled, taxonomic categorization has serious limitations  e.g., Dewey Decimal System  free-form, massively distributed tagging is resilient against several of these limitations http://shirky.com/writings/ontology_overrated.html

Slide 15: But…  ontologies aren’t taxonomies  they are for sharing, not finding  they enable cross-application aggregation and value-added services

Slide 16: Ontology of Folksonomy  What would it look like to formalize an ontology for tag data?  Functional Purpose: applications that use tag data from multiple systems  tag search across multiple sites  collaboratively filtered search  “find things using tags my buddies say match those tags”  combine tags with structured query  “find all hotels in Spain tagged with “romantic” http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm

Slide 17: Example: formal match, semantic mismatch  System A says a tag is a property of a document.  System B says a tag is an assertion by an individual with an identity.  Does it mean anything to combine the tag data from these two systems?  “Precision without accuracy”  “Statistical fantasy”

Slide 18: Engineering the tag ontology  Working with tag community, identify core and non core agreements  Use the process of ontology engineering to surface issues that need clarification  Couple a proposed ontology with reference implementations or hosted APIs

Slide 19: Core concepts  Term – a word or phrase that is recognizable by people and computers  Document – a thing to be tagged, identifiable by a URI or a similar naming service  Tagger – someone or thing doing the tagging, such as the user of an application  Tagged – the assertion by Tagger that Document should be tagged with Term

Slide 20: Issues raised by ontological engineering  is term identity invariant over case, whitespace, punctuation?  are documents one-to-one with URI identities? (are alias URLs possible?)  can tagging be asserted without human taggers?  negation of tag assertions?  tag polarity – “voting” for an assertion  tag spaces – is the scope of tagging data a user community, application, namespace, or database?

Slide 21: Volunteers Needed   Applications that need shared tagging data  Tag spaces and sources of tag data  Ontology engineers who can run an open source-style project http://www.tagcommons.org

Slide 22: Role 2: Creating aggregate value from structured data

Slide 23: Role 2: Creating aggregate value from structured data  Problem: In a collective knowledge system, the value of the aggregate content must be more than sum of parts  Approach: Create aggregate value by integrating user contributions of unstructured content with structured data.

Slide 24: Example: Collective Knowledge about Travel  RealTravel attracts people to write about their travels, sharing stories, photos, etc.  Travel researchers get the value of all experiences relevant to their target destinations. http://tomgruber.org/technology/realtravel.htm

Slide 26: Pivot Browsing – surfing unstructured content along structured lines  Structured data provides dimensions of a hypercube  location  author  type  date  quality rating  Travel researchers browse along any dimension.  The key structured data is the destination hierarchy  Contributors place their content into the destination hierarchy, and the other dimensions are automatic.

Slide 27: Destination data is the backbone  Group stories together by destination  Aggregate cities to states to countries, etc  Inherit locations down to photos  From destinations infer geocoordinates, which drive dynamic route maps  Destinations must map to external content sources (travel guides)  Destinations must map to targeted advertising

Slide 30: Contextual Tagging  Tags are bottom up labels, words without context.  A structured data framework provides context.  Combining context and tags creates insightful slices through the aggregate content.

Slide 33: Problems that Semantic Web could have helped  No standard source of structured destination data for the world  or way to map among alternative hierarchies  Integrating with other destination-based sites is expensive  e.g. travel guides  No standard collection of travel tags  or way to share RealTravel’s folksonomy  Integrating with other tagging sites is ad hoc  need a matching / translation service

Slide 34: Resources That Did Help  Open source software or free services  powerful databases  fancy UI libraries  search engines  usage analytics  Open APIs from Google (maps) and Flickr (photos)  Commercially available geocoordinate data and services

Slide 35: (Semantic Web) projects that could help collective knowledge systems  Tag spaces and tag data sharing  World destination hierarchy and other geocoordinate databases  Portable user identity and reputation  Site-independent rating and filtering  Alternatives to Google-style search  __audience contributions here___

Slide 36: Activities already going  Semantically-Interlinked Online Communities (SIOC) http://sioc-project.org/  semantic wiki projects http://wiki.ontoworld.org/wiki/Category:Semanti  __audience contributions here___

Slide 37: Challenges for our Community  How to get knowledge from all those intelligent people on the Internet  How to give everyone the benefit of everyone else’s experience  How to leverage and contribute to the ecosystem that has created today’s web.

Slide 38: What will the future look like? Social Web Social + Semantic Web

4 comentarios to “Web 3.0, Social Semantic Web, Tom Gruber-Where the Social Web Meets the Semantic Web.”

  1. Luis Pereira Says:

    Stumpedia.com is a social semantic web project that relies on human participation and collaboration to index, organize, and review the world wide web. Help build natural language processing and the semantic web by participating on Stumpedia.

  2. urban Says:

    BzN216 kjs610fgTrcv3pXa8f2h

  3. Alexwebmaster Says:

    Hello webmaster
    I would like to share with you a link to your site
    write me here preonrelt@mail.ru

  4. SideWeilm Says:

    продам Форд-Фокус 2008 года за 200 тр. торг возможет. срочно!!!
    +7 960 200 9209


Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: