Maybe you should not.
Let us cut to the chase. When Internet two. was introduced as a idea, the “marketects” jumped on it and made the decision that every thing new that related to the internet was Web two.. In actuality the term was coined by Dale Dougherty, an O’Reilly executive, and O’Reilly used the term as a brand name for a line of successful conferences – and hence it became a trademark. I’m not certain if anyone claims ownership of Web 3. or whether or not O’Reilly can darken the sky with attorneys if you organize a Web three. conference, but let us get back to Web two. instead than go into that.
The term “Web two. was invented to describe the new wave of dot com businesses, from Google onwards, that became highly beneficial following the dot com collapse. The vast majority of those businesses implemented social networking programs (which could also be explained as Telecomms applications) because they concerned individual-to-person (P2P) or group collaboration. All of this made perception until some marketects made the decision, on the basis of nothing at all, that wealthy interfaces and web solutions were also Internet 2..
Web three. is the Semantic Web
So let’s get it straight from the get go. If Internet 3. means something at all, it means the semantic internet. That’s the accepted which means. If O’Reilly wants to dispute this (legally or or else) then I suggest they consider problem with Project10x, a company that has created a Internet three. Manifesto, which speaks of absolutely nothing other than Semantic Systems. I’ll do a Q&A on the Semantic Web in a posting in the next week or so, but correct now let me just say a few easy issues.
The hype phase for the semantic internet is on us. I am now obtaining inundated with email about semantic this-and-that and I keep operating into software that declare to be “semantic” and hence “can leap tall structures in a single certain”
Correct now there is no killer application for semantic technologies. Some commentators say it’s web research. I say “merde du taureau.”
Semantic Technology is Artificial Intelligence. At minimum some individuals declare that it is AI, which is usually sufficient to sink a technologies with out trace. However, it isn’t AI. Reasoning has nothing to do with it.
There are some helpful programs of Semantic Technology. I’ve written about 1 here. It has found a good area of application – advertising.
The Semantic Internet will not ruin Google. Fb stands a better opportunity of destroying Google than the Semantic Web. If any start-up company does produce a persuasive semantic research capability, Google will purchase them.
I study via the Web 3. Manifesto and, essentially, I didn’t buy much of what it was declaring. It was telling the usual silver-bullet-huge-ROI story. For example, allow me quote:
“Semantic options deploy quickly, incrementally, iteratively, and flexibly, resulting in lower exposure and faster time to worth.”
What can I say? I’m glad I only study it and did not step in it.
The problem is that the manifesto talks in obscure generalities. The actuality is that semantic technologies can improve the act of filtering in numerous situations because they can guess at which means much better. If you develop that into some methods it will make a difference, and in some contexts it may make a significant difference.
But in numerous situations, the present level of semantics of the system are adequate. For instance most databases have sufficient semantics to explain the information they include. Most applications also have sufficient semantics at the user interface – so the consumer understands what the consumer is searching at. Semantic technologies will improve text applications for sure, but by how much? Most likely a good deal if you’re looking via educational papers, most likely now a lot if you are searching the news.
From now on, anytime you study about semantic technologies, do yourself a favor. Turn your hype detector on.
for more information on MTR and Reference interconnect agreements please see our website