Sometimes online culture really makes me wonder. This past week the Twittering world was up in arms about a minor change to the functionality of the tool with regards to replies. I’m not going to go into details, the info is all here, and here, and here. Feel free to wear yourself out with it.

What’s most amazing to me is that while everyone was busy complaining about Twitter, two incredible things happened that almost nobody mentioned.

First, the long-anticipated Wolfram|Alpha semantic search tool was released. Wolfram|Alpha is the vision of scientist Stephen Wolfram. His idea was to “make all systematic knowledge immediately computable and accessible to everyone.” In plain English, what he’s trying to do is link all the data in the world together, to create a system of which you can ask nearly any question. The system is designed to work more the way humans think – by creating relationships between seemingly disparate data. For example, let’s say you want to know the nutritional value of your breakfast. Currently, there are tools out there that will help you calculate that. Google will do it. But the problem is, you can’t just ask Google, “How many calories are in my bowl of cornflakes and glass of orange juice?”. If you don’t believe me, go try it. You’ll get results for Orange juice, mostly. You may get some results for Corn Flakes too. But you won’t get your definitive answer without much clicking and calculating.

Wolfram|Alpha hopes to change all that. If you go there and type in “calories in 1 bowl of corn flakes + a glass of OJ”, not only will you get the total number of calories, but you’ll get a nutritional breakdown of protein, carbs, fat, and vitamins of the entire meal.

This changes everything – and if you don’t agree with me, read on.

The second amazing thing that happened this week while everyone was otherwise distracted with their twittering was that Google also announced their first step towards the Semantic Web. Yes, Google. Called Rich Snippets, the concept is to enhance search results with linked data. Currently, when you look up information on a new restaurant in town, you might get a web site link, or a Google map and phone number. If you do a second search for reviews, you may get some links to reviews. You will have to go seek out and look at their menu online to find out if their prices are affordable. You can go to a specific site such as Restaurantica and find even more information. So now you are 4 or 5 searches into things just to figure out if you might want to eat there.

The plan with Rich Snippets is to allow for all of this information to appear in one search result. You simply search for the restaurant’s name and the results will include reviews, price points, locations and perhaps even a direct link to make a reservation. Linked data will make it all possible.

But…but I went and tried it and it doesn’t work very well. This technology sucks!

You know what? You’re right. It’s far, far, FAR from perfect. Half the time you go on Wolfram|Alpha and you’ll and error message that says the system is over capacity (though the W|A scientists do a have a sense of humour – the error message is reminiscent of HAL from “2001 A Space Odyssey”). Google Rich Snippets technology is reliant upon web designers embedding special mark up codes within their content that will allow Google’s linking algorithms to grab the data. That means gaining buy-in and changing behaviours of the development community – no easy feat.

But…but I don’t need to worry about this stuff yet. Besides….Twitter!

Is the technology a long way out? It’s not as far away as you think. Remember way back when online video was a challenge to deal with? Nobody wanted to use it because it sucked bandwidth, was choppy and low quality at best, and crashed more browsers than it displayed in. That was waaaay back in 2003. YouTube was launched in 2005. That was only 4 years ago, for anyone who may have lost count. Now, how many online videos have you watched so far today? My point exactly.

The point is, Web 3.0 is here. Yes, yes…social media is glorious, fabulous, and has fundamentally changed the way we socialize, communicate, do business and interact.

But, the Semantic Web is going to be an even bigger shift. If you are even remotely involved or interested in technology, and especially if your business relies on it, do your homework and learn about this stuff NOW. Because in 2 years or less, online communication will have reached critical mass and will be as ubiquitous as the telephone. The world will have moved on from Twitter and Facebook.

The next big thing is not social media. Want to be the next thought leader? Then spend your time thinking about this:

The next big thing is information and how we use it.

That is all.

Share/Save

This is part two of a two part post on Web 3.0 by my friend Don. You can catch up by reading part one here. Today, Don takes us into the present day – exploring the current state of the Web and provides insights on how we can meet the challenges of the emerging Web 3.0 era.

In January 2009, Jessi Hempel of CNNMoney.com actually declared Web 2.0 “over” and welcomed the emergence of Web 3.0. Accordingly, Web 2.0 has been a “Total Bust.” Web 2.0, personified by social networking services such as MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and their enormous fan bases, are not exceedingly profitable. Myspace is projected to make $400 million in revenue less than projected. Twitter has no business model. Google has not been able to shift away from relying on advertising revenues. Its purchase of the popular video sharing service, YouTube, has not produced discernible profit.

While Web 2.0 has changed the way people interact with the web (i.e. disruptive technologies), it has failed to produce equivalent financial success like its surviving dot-com predecessors, Amazon and Yahoo. The piece echoes Dan Farber’s 2 year old determinations. Few social networking companies have viable business models. Everyone is in the cycle of raising money and trying to “score a life- or business-altering hit”, potentially in the hopes of being acquired. Hempel also points out that many companies rely on advertising, which is problematic because, as a recently published Time magazine piece states, social networks break from the traditional model that brought marketers to the web. They do not permit advertisers to target by subject. While these services continue to gather large numbers of people together, they demonstrate themselves inappropriate to marketers because no one knows who users are or what they want. The result: an ad on Yahoo’s news portal commands 30 times the value of an ad on Facebook. Hempel’s piece ends with a longing for what Web 3.0 may bring.

In 2007, Google CEO Eric Schmidt defined Web 3.0 at the Seoul Digital forum. After first joking that Web 2.0 is “a marketing term”, Schmidt theorized that, while Web 2.0 was based on Ajax (Javascript and DOM), Web 3.0 will be “applications that are pieced together.” Its characteristics will include relatively small apps. The data is in the cloud. The applications can run on any device. The apps will be very fast, very customizable, and distributed virally (social networks, email, etc). In short, the CEO of a Web 2.0 giant re-iterated O-Reilly’s definition of Web 2.0, characteristic for characteristic.

• “applications that are placed together” -> Characteristic 5
• “Relatively small apps, whose data is in the cloud” -> Characteristics 3 and 5
• “the application can run on any device” -> Characteristic 6
• “The apps will be very fast, very customizable and distributed virally” -> Characteristics 1, 2, and 4

If Schmidt is correct, utility of web services drives their profitability, meaning Web 2.0 is still profitable so long as companies make add-ons, to provide novel functionality like location-based services or financial payment systems, that can be bolted onto existing services. Perhaps, Schmidt was motivated, like O’Reilly before him, to establish new jargon, distance his company from Web 2.0, and re-brand technology that Google is invested in.

Nova Spivack, CEO of Radar Networks and creator of Twine, the first mainstream semantic web-enabled service, begs to differ. According to him, Web 3.0 is statistics, linguistics, open data, computer intelligence, wisdom of crowds, and user generated content, all coming together. It is the “natural convergence” of web innovations that have occurred to date. And yes, semantic web technologies will power the convergence.

When Spivack released Twine two years ago, he explained how the newly popular buzz words “semantic web” fit in Web 3.0. Unlike web iterations, the semantic web is not jargon. It is a set of standardized technologies, designed to address features currently lacking in the web. It is meant to extend the web so that all information exists in a format that software can understand and reason with. In so doing, software can leverage conceptualized information (i.e. knowledge), making them seem more intelligent. An early realization involves services from the web driving more complete responses to natural language queries. Another is thinner applications that leverage semantic-aware services or structured information in a “knowledge commons.” As such, services from the web will not be restricted to information they themselves capture or store in traditional relational databases.

At the moment, Spivack envisions the semantic web just merging additional meta data, in the form of RDF (resource description framework), into existing content. More complex ontologies using OWL (web ontology language) can come later. Meanwhile, like another semantic web pioneering firm called MetaWeb, he recommends navigating the noise about Web 3.0 by realizing that the semantic web presently resides in a niche. But, it will have effects on all aspects of the web. Spivack also recommends looking deeply into purported Web 3.0 companies who market semantic products to determine what technologies they use and how much expertise they have.

It is now May 2009. The capabilities that I forecast in my original tech scan have neither been fully realized, nor have many of these technologies been popularized. While some smart phones have global positioning system (GPS) technology built in, very few mainstream services are location aware. Notebooks have superseded desktops, but netbooks have emerged, meaning that furniture with built-in consoles is still a while off (Microsoft’s Surface notwithstanding). While some credit cards use RFID chips to automate payment at the cash, adoption of product-based asset management has not been implemented. While Apple released a 17″ desktop replacement notebook with a reputed day’s worth of Lithium Ion power, long lasting fuel cells do not power our gadgets. As for web services, the promise of service oriented architecture was powerful, but its popularity has fallen to the wayside with the emergence of cloud computing.

What we can draw from this in the midst of the web potentially going through yet another redacted effort to ensure profitability?

Firstly, the potential of various emerging technologies to have lasting effects on human lives takes time to realize, but needs to be driven. Today the web has a glut of information of varying qualities, a large proportion of which is user generated content. Users need to demand more from the services that are available and try new ones. This includes services that feature better usability, easier accessibility, and more intelligent responses to queries. The impetus to innovate is slowly being extinguished by large corporations who acquire their services instead of grow them. They have enormous influence in defining what utility their services deliver. Left alone, innovation will be stifled.

Secondly, revenue streams need to change. As a very recent piece by Read Write Web’s Bearnard Lunn states, the iterations of the web are in transition (Web 2.5). Investors are wary of Web 2.0 services and difficulties with their being profitable. A possible alternative could be subscriptions and/or transaction fees. This way, users can re-take ownership of the information that Web 2.0 companies have embraced. Companies leverage user generated content by mining for intelligence. However, the intelligence generated does not always benefit the users who contributed it. By moving towards subscription and transaction fee-based revenue, entrepreneurs can be encouraged to build the services that will produce semantic-enriched content. In turn, this can seed the development of a knowledge commons and intelligent services from the web.

Thirdly, the all-encompassing jargon that is Web 2.0 ensures that adherent technology will continue to emerge. Rich internet applications powered by Microsoft Siverlight, Adobe AIR or the like have begun to break free of the browser (e.g. third-party Twitter or Facebook clients), yet they rely on services from the web. Smart phones are eclipsing more traditional cell phones and landlines, be they connected by cellular wireless, WiMAX or a mesh network of more traditional WiFi. The most popular smart phone, the Apple iPhone employs light weight applications, some of which consume services from the web. However, the applications themselves are distributed through a service on the web that has created a new marketplace. CEOs should be encouraged not to produce jargon to pursue investment. Technological escapism is counterproductive, because overzealous converts can ignore paths to innovation. Clearly, there remains untapped innovation that fit Web 2.0 characteristics.

Fourthly, users need the tenacity to navigate hype and continue to produce and consume content. Berniers-Lee’s rebuttal to Web 2.0 continues to reverberate. The web is about people. People need to continue to demand an open space in which to share with each other. This is what the web was designed for. This is also why it continues to evolve.

—–

Don is an IT Professional with over a decade’s experience in a field where he has been called many things; application developer, database administrator, web-application architect, technical analyst, and security analyst.  More recently, the word “senior” prefixes his titles, which he claims is to reduce white-space on his business card.  Interestingly, he started life as a sociologist, but turned to IT to pay the bills.  Doing so, he became infatuated with information and flattening the knowledge pyramid (data -> information -> knowledge). That infatuation persists today. You can follow Don @foodieprints on Twitter.

Share/Save

Over the next two days, I’m handing Suzemuse over to my friend Don. He has a really compelling take on the phenomenon of Web 3.0 and where this new media stuff  is all headed. He starts us off today with a history lesson, on how we got from Web 1.0 to where we are now. Enjoy the post, learn lots and I encourage you to open a dialogue in the comments!

In 2003, I was asked to write a piece, called a “tech scan”, on what impact then advances in technology would have on the justice sector. After spending several days reading ZD-Net, C-Net, and other corresponding reputable on-line sources, I settled on definitions for bleeding and leading edge technologies, linking them to Gartner’s “hype cycle.” I then chose specific technologies to focus on. Gartner is a multi-national consulting firm, whose highly paid consultants monitor technology and produce highly regarded projections for CEOs (Chief Executive Officers), CIOs (Chief Information Officers), and CTOs(Chief Technology Officers) to follow. My choices, pervasive computing (aka: ubiquitous computing), radio frequency identification (RFID), identification frameworks, fuel cells, and web services (system to system communications), agreed with Gartner’s predictions. I even put together a scenario for how these technologies could work together. When completed, I concluded that determining technology trends and forecasting their effects the way I did it was tantamount to standing against the tide. Sifting through mountains of disparate information on technologies to determine what promise they had was both labour and time intensive. At the end of the piece, I strongly recommended my employer dedicate resources to regularly monitor emerging technologies and leverage existing trend forecasts.

It is far easier to put together a tech scan on the impact of advances in web technologies, as the web has three iterations already defined. They span past, present, and future. Web 1.0 begot what is presently Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 is emerging. Each iteration is not a version per se. The World Wide Web (www) has not been upgraded. To explain, let us start, somewhat counter-intuitively, with Web 2.0. This is because it is the only iteration that has an accepted formal definition, coming from Tim O’Reilly. O’Reilly, however, should not be confused with the English Physicist, Tim Berniers-Lee.

Berniers-Lee is largely accredited with inventing the web in 1989. During the proceeding years, leading up to March 10, 2001, a rash of Internet-based companies, commonly referred to as “dot-coms”, were founded. They saw their stock prices multiply by simply associating themselves to the growing fervour around the web. Investors concerned themselves with increasing their market shares without any concern about profitability. Many dot-coms had neither discernible products nor services. Few had articulated business plans. Their goal: establish a recognized brand, claim market share even at a sustained net loss, and charge profitable rates for services afterward. The bubble burst, which lead to the emergence of Web 2.0.

Pre-bubble, building web applications or designing websites was incomprehensible to the general public. Afterward, web application developers and web designers were treated with disdain. Those of us who left university with formal training in building software faced some hardship starting our careers post-bubble. However, the web continued to evolve. While the more resilient dot-coms struggled to re-invent themselves (e.g. Amazon and Yahoo), traditional publishers discovered a new digital medium in the web and found their way onto it, only to discover that non-traditional content was already present and thriving, the blogosphere. People had flocked to the web, using it to create new ways to communicate with one another and share ideas. The wasteland that was the web had again grown lush with opportunity.

In 2004, O’Reilly, CEO of O’Reilly Media, held a brainstorming session with a trade show production company called MediaLive International. Its intention was to address the “state” of the web, determine its possible future, and demonstrate that it can again generate revenue. During the session, O’Reilly Media publisher Dale Dougherty coined the phrase Web 2.0. A year later, O’Reilly published a blog, soundly defining Web 2.0. Accordingly, it has the following characteristics:

1. The Web as a Platform: services are built and delivered from the web (e.g. google)
2. Harnessing Collective Intelligence: web both empowers user generated content and leverages that content to foster communities and harness collaboration respectively (e.g. blog’s, wiki’s, and RSS feeds from them)
3. Data is the Next “Intel Inside”: data drives the services on the web, but successful services depend on embracing and enriching it with contributions from many sources (e.g. google maps)
4. End of the Software Release Cycle: software is delivered as a service
5. Lightweight Programming Models and Mash-ups: simpler solutions are built by leaner development teams who can innovate by assembling together existing solutions
6. Software Above the Level of a Single Device: services are no longer limited to desktops or laptops and can leverage other devices like consumer electronics
7. Rich User Experience: user interfaces have more dynamic interactions, but are based on open standards (e.g. CSS for layout, XML for data, XHTML for markup, Javascript and DOM for interaction)

Essentially, he defined a piece of jargon that encompassed all of the new business models and service approaches that formed post-bubble, labelled everything that came before as Web 1.0, and dismissed Web 1.0 as antiquated. Based on his redactive efforts, the 1.0 incarnation of the Web began in 1990 and ended in 2000. Its 2.0 incarnation began in 2001 and continues today.

In 2006, Berniers-Lee took issue with Web 2.0 in a podcast, saying that, as jargon, it overlooks the fact that Web 1.0 was equally about connecting people. The jargon is also interpretable. If Web 2.0 for a particular person is about blogs and wikis, then it is about people. This is precisely what the Web was initially designed for, a collaborative space where people can interact. In other words, people have been putting word to web, long before the emergence of the chronological blog or the permalink. The wrinkle is ease with which to publish online content and increased collaborative ability.

Though, there are signs that interest in Web 2.0 has begun to wane. In 2007, ZDNet’s Dan Farber blogged that Web 2.0 is not dead, but Web 3.0 is “bubbling up.” The piece was a summary of the proceedings from that year’s Web 2.0 “summit.” Highlights include the determination that Web 2.0 companies seem to be all in some stage of the cycle of pursuing funding from venture capitalists, building marketplace, and then attracting purchase from larger corporations. Few big innovations have been produced. Instead, too many entrepreneurs have come to market with add-on features not products. Too many products have been produced to crowd the same space. And, too many start ups have tried to mimic an already successful product.

(come back tomorrow for part II!)

—-

Don is an IT Professional with over a decade’s experience in a field where he has been called many things; application developer, database administrator, web-application architect, technical analyst, and security analyst.  More recently, the word “senior” prefixes his titles, which he claims is to reduce white-space on his business card.  Interestingly, he started life as a sociologist, but turned to IT to pay the bills.  Doing so, he became infatuated with information and flattening the knowledge pyramid (data -> information -> knowledge). That infatuation persists today. You can follow Don @foodieprints on Twitter.

Share/Save

Wowee! I’m super excited by the number of responses I’m getting on my last two posts (here and here, if you want to catch up) about making meaning out of the Web. I’ve already connected with some new people over this and am having some really interesting conversations. It’s shown me that people really DO want to start talking about these things, and that where the Web is going is just as important as where we are right now.

The one thing I did anticipate were a certain number of comments and discussions around the problems that all of this meaningful Web stuff will create. Every new idea comes with its own set of issues. The bigger the idea, the more hurdles there will be to overcome. That’s the way the Universe works.

Here are some of the issues that have been pointed out to me in the past few days (I’m paraphrasing but you can check this tweet, my two previous post comments and Social Media Today for the actual comments):

• Even if communities and industries DO share data, it’s going to be very difficult to aggregate everything we need.
• Privacy concerns and identity theft could prevent a real solution from ever taking hold.
• Could be a while before we have adoption like this across the board.
• We need to see applications based on examples before we share government data with the rest of the world.

All of these things are absolutely true and valid issues. Some of them are big problems, and many of them seem insurmountable at this time.

But – where there are problems, there are solutions.

This is the exciting part. This is where we get to experiment, explore, talk, argue, and ultimately work towards figuring this stuff out and building real tools that will really help this to happen.

The whole point here is to start to figure out how to make meaning out of the Web. How to create tools and standards that connect all of these disparate pieces of information into something that is extraordinarily useful.

This isn’t just about making it more convenient to book concert tickets. Connecting information can have planet-altering effects. What do you think the value is of linking ALL of the research in the entire world that anyone has ever done about cancer, and making it available in one place? I mean anything. Medical studies, homeopathic remedies, treatments from other cultures, even information from individuals. Tools can then be created that can intelligently go in and disseminate that information, and possibly find the magic combination that could lead to new treatments, or even a cure. This isn’t a pipe dream. People are actually working on these concepts.

Let’s talk some more. I want to hear your thoughts in the comments – and I want to find some other ways that we can keep this dialogue going.

My mind is wide open….

Share/Save

Raw Data Now! Raw Data Now! Raw Data Now!

This is the phrase Tim Berners-Lee made the audience chant at his recent TED talk. I recommend you watch the video if you want to really understand why he did it.

I’ve been trying to understand my frustration with all things online. I think I’m starting to get somewhere. You see, we’re stuck. We’ve come about as far as we can with the current state of the Web. We know how to connect, we know how to communicate, market, brand and sell in this space. Now we’re out there teaching others how to do it too. We’re doing a pretty good job of it, and lots of people are catching on to the power of this new medium. Sure, we’re still working out the kinks. But we’re getting there.

To alleviate some of my boredom with social media, I’ve started thinking a lot about data, and about how to make information more meaningful. You see, it’s all fine and well that we have this wonderful Web with billions of pages of information. We have communities, and connectedness, and the ability to access nearly anything or anyone at the push of a button. But there are still really simple things we can’t do.

Imagine if you will…

You love the musician Beck. You go to his web site. You click a single button that says “Buy Tickets”. The site  knows what city you live in. It compares your Google calendar to the concert schedule. It discovers that Beck is playing in your city on August 18th and it just so happens you are available that day. It buys two tickets, sends you a confirmation, and inserts the event into your calendar on your behalf. It does all of this in one click.

Here’s one my students came up with…I added the shopping list bit.

You are surfing on Flickr and come across a picture of the most delicious looking chocolate cake you’ve ever seen. You want the recipe. You click on the photo, and up pops a list of recipes for chocolate cake. You choose your preferred recipe and the ingredients list is then placed in your shopping list tool on your iPhone. Don’t want to bake? Then just choose to have the cake custom made at your local bakery. The order gets sent directly to them, and all you need to do is go pick it up.

The Web, in all it’s glory, cannot perform these simple tasks in it’s current iteration. But it’s possible. And it will happen. What do we need to achieve this? Well, as Berners-Lee says, we need people to start releasing their data. By people, he means governments, corporations, organizations, and individuals.

Of course as soon as anyone starts pushing around ideas about releasing data people’s backs go up. They get defensive. They don’t want to give away secrets. They want to hang on to everything and share nothing.

But sharing data is what is going to make this new Web possible.

We are already good at sharing, right? We share on our blogs, we share on Twitter, we share links, contact info, we share what we know about stuff, and so on. So, it stands to reason then that we should already feel comfortable with sharing our data?

Making sense of information is going to be the next big step for the Web. As much as the onset of new media has revolutionized the way we interact, making meaning out of the Web will change things even more.

So, where do we begin?

Share/Save

20 years.

It’s been 20 whole years since my hero, Sir Tim Berners-Lee wrote a paper that would change the world.

Now here we are, in the midst of an information, communication and conversation revolution. It’s so exciting that sometimes I can’t sleep. The way we do business, make friends, shop, eat and work has changed exponentially within just a few short years. The Internet is and continues to be the buzzword of the century.

Here we all are; chatting, connecting, communicating, networking, personally branding, and marketing to each other. We’re meeting and sharing and creating and celebrating with each other. And it’s great.

So why am I getting so sick of hearing about it?

Here’s a little moment of truth for you. I’m getting really, really tired of social media. I’m getting tired of the fishbowl and the echo chamber. I’m tired of Twitter, of blogs, of conferences, of gurus and experts. I’m tired of listening to the same stories over and over, and of listening to continuous chatter and seeing little evidence of any real work being done.

Now don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying that there isn’t anything valuable or relevant going on in social media. There are still lots of people providing value and being extremely relevant. Mitch and Chris are still doing it. Though if you read their stuff you’ll see quickly that they are not really talking about social media, but they’re actually talking about marketing and communicating well. What they are saying is absolutely worth listening to.

At the end of the day, I think many people are missing the point of all this World Wide Web stuff. The Web isn’t about following, or leading, or fauxlebrity, or who is hanging out with who at which fancy conference. But these kinds of popularity contests are becoming more and more common, especially as services like Twitter start to hit the mainstream. The value is getting lost in the hype, and people are getting caught up in the wrong kind of attention.

I’m ready to start having a different kind of conversation now. Enough with the following, the auto-replies, the selfish expectations and the politics already! Let’s start talking about what we actually want to DO with this tool that Sir Tim gave us.

Let’s start talking about how information is going to be distributed and linked together and marketed in the future. Let’s start talking about semantics, and linked data, and how information is actually going to start to become meaningful in this space.

We’ve come a long way in a few short years. What’s most important is now, we’ve got each other. We can learn and explore and share and experience and invent together. We’re so fortunate to be in the position we are, because we’re already here. We have a voice. We can help shape the future of information.

It’s time to step out of the fishbowl and start doing some real work.

Who’s in?

Share/Save