To start, the semantic web needs to be re-branded as the Data Web. Now take a deep breath. Doesn't the air feel lighter and taste sweeter? That's because the heaviness of the baggage brought along by the word "semantic" is gone. People see semantic and go all screwy: "Replace humans with computers?" or "How do you deal with uncertainty?" or "How do we agree on what we mean by agreement?" or "A.I. never worked."
Even Tim B.L. thinks that the name "semantic web" isn't very good:
I don't think it's a very good name but we're stuck with it now. The word semantics is used by different groups to mean different things. But now people understand that the Semantic Web is the Data Web. I think we could have called it the Data Web. It would have been simpler.
What does it mean to have a data web? To me, it means that the underlying data that powers the web page/site/application is exposed to the web via URIs. The data web is about pulling up all those databases that live under a web application and placing them squarely on the web. Placing something on the web simply means giving it a URI and, often times, making sure a representation is returned when you dereference the URI.
We already have databases, we already have web servers, we already have HTTP, we already have URIs. The pieces are in place. We just aren't in the habit of publishing machine readable data, as often times the data is seen as the heavily protected intellectual property. This is a mind set issue that will be changed over time as people and businesses figure out how to make money off of data (hey Google, figure out AdSense for RDF or connect all the data together, expose it to end users, and place ads on it (or wait, they already do that)).
Repeat after me: Data Web, Data Web, Data Web. Put my data on the web. Give it a URI. Create a Web of Data.
Semantics: old 'n busted. Data: the new hotness.
(note to self, put money where mouth is)
7 comments:
+1
On the other hand: If you're looking for grant money or selling consulting services the "semantic" is god-sent :-)
I think you bring up a good point. The semantic web, as it is usually described and sold, is interesting from a research perspective. Because it smacks of AI, which is always interesting and promising, but always "5 to 10 years off."
The data web is pragmatic, useful, and all the technologies are here. So why is that interesting? :)
Defined that way, I agree, but then its just a bunch of web sites as web services. The piece that you are dropping is the universal meaning and thats one of the hard parts. Also, expressing stuff in RDF is not clearly the best way, as simple XML or even RSS-flavor could be good..
Ah, but you're already overloading the concept: there's no "universal meaning" in the semantic web. Is there a universal meaning for anything? Well, maybe mathematics. :)
And so what if the data web is "just a bunch of web sites as web services"? That seemed to turn out just fine.
I was always a fan of the "symbolic web", which is much closer to the truth than "semantic". Doesn't sound as nice as data-web though.
[...] Semantic Web Doesn’t Have to Be Difficult 라는 글에서는 흥미로운 주장을 합니다. 새로운 이름이 필요하다는 것이죠. 접근 방식은 물론, 우리 스스로가 ‘Semantic’ 이라는 명칭에 얽매여서, 그 본질적인 가능성을 잘못 판단하고 있는 것은 아닐까요? ‘ 웹은 의미를 가진다?’ 아니, 무슨 의미란 말이죠? 지금은 그럼 의미가 없나요? 아니 그게 말이죠.. 어쩌구 저쩌구… [...]
[...] Data Web이라고 부르자고 하는 시도는 여기저기서 있어왔습니다. (참고 : Semantic Web doesn’t have to be difficult) 이제와서 제가 다시 빌려다 쓰는것에 불과하지요^^ 어쨌든 우리가 하나의 [...]
Post a Comment