The long-awaited Web 3.0 starts to emerge

By | May 16, 2012
It's about time Google introduced semantic ontologies into their search engine – and it looks like that step is finally happening! People have been waiting for a while for web 3.0 – or the knowledge web – to go mainstream. The next internet era is beginning.

Reshared post from +Stefan Keuchel

Hier kommt noch eine sehr interessante Ankündigung – erst mal das Video dazu: Introducing the Knowledge Graph

9 thoughts on “The long-awaited Web 3.0 starts to emerge

  1. Michael Kelly

    +Sophie Wrobel We aren't planning on making our product a standalone tool, but instead something that retailers can snap into mobile, kiosk and web commerce sites to make it easier for consumers to understand how what they are looking at best meets what they are looking to use it for. But once we have a site or two that we have found to partner with I will happily send you an invitation to check it out and share your feedback.

    I wasn't intending to shill our startup, we have the engine but without the frontend we are the equivalent of a car without a body – and that isn't going to happen without a partner in retail or commerce.

    We filed the patents, built the engine and got interest – but we still don't have the car yet. People want to buy it, but health problems with the developer mean it may or may not happen.

    Regardless, with respect to where Google is going, we are on the same side, anything that helps people understand the value of choice, intent and relevance in addressing the WHY and HOW is probably good for us too.

    A quick route to How and Why is to look at Intent, Choice and Relevance. Intent being the goal or expectation, Choice being the means by which choices are made, and Relevance being the connection between Choice and Intent (capitalizing for emphasis).

    Of course that is our approach, there is no one right answer to a problem that involves so many needs, tastes and preferences.

    What I will say is that I am pleased that Google is moving in this direction. 3 years ago I was beating the drum for relevance to intent, because intent is what you actually plan to use products and information for. It is the value it represents to you.

    The problem is that intent is subjective, just like value. What Google is doing here is finding likely connections between data and making what it feels are relevant connections. They are making a relevance engine, which is much more powerful than a search engine.

    Search is about finding the data or the resources but what comes next is better understanding the data and resources, and then better understanding of how to apply it and turn that understanding into a resource itself.

    What that is can be called "knowledge crystallization", the ability to make the way people evaluate and validate something that is portable, and able to be traded or shared. A step forward in this direction is to allow people to use the knowledge and expertise of others combined with their individual needs and tastes. That is what we are focusing on but I think the near future will see more relevance become the new search.

    Plus, relevance engines combined with crystallized knowledge will become incredibly powerful tools to turn expertise from a service to a product.

    Reply
  2. Michael Kelly

    +Barry Robinson It is absolutely useful. And correct, relevance of information is a key need now.

    So much information is out there, as are so many resources….which ones should I use? why?

    One could argue that instead of the WHAT or the WHERE (which is essentially what search is), the question answered is indeed WHICH.

    But wrapping and delivering knowledge is not there yet, because the HOW and WHY are still harder to encapsulate.

    It is frustrating that someone wraps a good value in a pithy term that not only is not what it is…but to some extent prevents people from building the real knowledge graphs that are indeed needed.

    I do believe that we need more HOW and WHY tools. We have tons of WHAT tools, plenty of WHERE, and the beginning of some great WHICH tools. But very few true HOW and WHY.

    That again is just my opinion, and let's be frank, my own startup is based on providing a how and why tools. I focus on this everyday, and you know the saying "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail".

    So yes, I have some bias because I immerse myself in these types of issues daily. But that aside, I would love to see more focus on knowledge and less on information.

    Because while information is a resource, knowledge is the understanding of how to use that resource to get value from it.

    No intent to belittle the post, my frustration is with marketing departments that jump on a related term and in so doing they suck away the real meaning from use.

    Reply
  3. Barry Robinson

    I know the difference between data and knowledge, I worked as a major consultant for 5 years and a systems programer for 10 years before that. It's not a "written in stone" prophecy. I'm just making some wild random leaps that in the future systems might well become cooperative. People could easily, given the current trends, lease the abilities. For instance, to recognize shapes, know top news stories, know what tastes nice. These capabilities, and there segregation, and co operative working is not unlike the human brain. It is therefore not that unlikely that a form of self awareness will arise in some form of emergent behavior..

    Reply
  4. Michael Kelly

    Yet another tech term stealing a real definition.

    Just like the term "intelligence" in things like "business intelligence" (which is really business analytics). Yes, intelligence is the ability to draw conclusions and apply knowledge or skill – but I believe it implies the ability to draw conclusions and infer even when data is not complete or available.

    Knowledge definitions vary but knowledge seems to be the application of experience and insight to information as to how it can be applied to do something or solve something. It is not the connection of the information pieces to each other but the relevance of that information to the goal, and HOW THAT INFORMATION IS APPLIED that is the knowledge.

    So for the most part, knowledge is not the WHAT but the HOW and the WHY of things.

    So now when someone invents a real knowledge graph, they are going to have to call it something else since people are going to be calling anything that groups and sorts relevant information "Knowledge" just like anyone snaps "intelligence" to their label if their product does analytics.

    Reply
  5. Barry Robinson

    It's kind of how the brain works, it factors off tasks to various portions of it's self and knows of it's own existence because of the brain stem that connects each neuron back to it's self.

    Reply
  6. Barry Robinson

    Emergent behavior is more what I was thinking about. The idea that interconnected systems will start to display more than the sum of there parts as it where. I'm aware of what your talking about, I used to be a programmer [actually a systems programmer developing network management systems], then a consultant. I agree with you in part, but I still think the internet is where intelligence will manifest it's self due to massive interconnection…

    Reply
  7. Sophie Wrobel

    +Barry Robinson not quite. Self aware systems are more along the lines of quadcopter fleets, surgical nano-bugs, or Data. This is more of teaching the search engine to play word association rather than its own existence – though self-aware search engines would be cool.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.