Comments on: Minding The Planet — The Meaning and Future of the Semantic Web

By: The Global Brain is about to Wake Up « Nova Spivack – Minding the Planet

Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:51:27 +0000

[...] Web standars of the W3C are key to this. I’ve written a long manifesto on this in “Minding The Planet: The Meaning and Future of the Semantic Web” if you’re really interested in that [...]

By: Shilpa Srivastava

Shilpa Srivastava — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 08:29:26 +0000

Hi
Your article is very informative, can you inform about something. Now the web content developed follow some specific formats like keyword density,meta tags etc. Will there be any change in the way content will be written for Semantic web. I mean will the content writers have the liberty to present information in the way they want and don’t worry about the usage of keywords to be used often in the content, so that the search engines can pick it.

By: Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:07:39 +0000

Sorry to double post here – check out the book Nada Brahma if you have not read it.

By: Michael Flynn

Michael Flynn — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 22:53:28 +0000

Great article Nova – very clear and concise. Space looks like it was a lot of fun. I look forward to meeting you someday.
Best Regards,
Michael Flynn, Jr.

By: Jean-Marie Le Ray

Jean-Marie Le Ray — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:37:54 +0000

Hi Nova,
Brilliant and pedagogical, you’ve succeeded in your intent to “found the words to communicate what you can clearly see”, and I’m very sure that Mr Peter F. Drucker, your late grandfather, is absolutely proud of you.
I would like to translate your “book” above in french for sharing it with french spoken people. It would be quite a long work, but maybe doing one piece today, another tomorrow and so forth, I’d be able to finish it by the end of next month.
Would you authorize me to do so?
Congrats again.
Kind regards,
Jean-Marie

By: Nicolas Cynober

Nicolas Cynober — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 12:37:56 +0000

Duh! What a visionary article! I’ve just finished it and it’s good from the first line to the end. I’ve just finished my Master in Web Technologies at Oxford Brookes, and my teachers were all from the W3C. So I’ve learnt last W3C technologies and of course Semantic Web technologies.
And yes, Semantic Web technologies are mature, we have just to wait ontologies and RDFs descriptions spreading in vertical communities.
Thanks a lot Mr. Spivack for this excellent article, too much often semantic web articles are technicle and obscure (It’s true, Semantic Web is still an academic science).
I’m currently working on my Oxford dissertation named “PortalLib: Open component library for a vertical portal” and before I read your article I already planned to implement the semantic issue at different levels (Helping communities creating ontologies, implementing RDFa where I can, etc…). My dissertation will be soon in a draft version, may you could find the time to read some part of it (semantic part)?
Thanks again,
Nicolas
http://cyno.pbwiki.com (Dissertation)
http://nicolas.cynober.fr (Contact)

By: alistar

alistar — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:45:16 +0000

****************************************************************************************
NOTE TO EDITOR
I SUBMITTED A DOCUMENT EARLIER TODAY BUT IT WAS THE WRONG DRAFT. IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND, IF YOU INTEND TO POST MY MESSAGE, TO DELETE THE FIRST POST AND SUBMIT THE ONE BELOW INSTEAD. YOU HAVE MY PERMISSION TO DELETE THIS NOTE TO EDITOR IF AND WHEN YOU POST IT. THANK YOU. ALISTAR BAKER.
****************************************************************************************
Thanks for the introduction to the Semantic Web. As a student of Database Systems, I find the topic intriguing. From a technical stand-point, the Internet is based on HTML largely. Hyper Text Transfer Markup Language is simplistic compared to the core of the semantic web which is written in the Resource Description Framework (RDF) along with other standards like XML. RDF is a new data model which has a history. Mr. Spivack did not touch on this history much. I’d like to do so to give anyone who is interested, and idea of how data models evolve.
The Internet is simply a massive database containing an estimated 3 billion web pages, 40 million websites, and 300 million users. You might gather from these rough guesstimates there is a huge base of unstructured data ‘out there’. You’re right. This means, data models must handle massive amounts of unstructured data in future. RDF is a step in this direction.
We’ve come so far from the days of the tree-like hierarchical data model system 1st invented for mainframe computers. Yet the original hierarchical data model was conceptually simple. It could handle a 1:M relationship, that’s it. However, the original database was complex to use. Only a highly skilled specialist could use it. It lacked structural independence. There were other disadvantages as well; so eventually a new data model emerged–The Network data model.
This new model was simpler and more versatile. Arguably, one of the most important developments to come from the network model was the data definition and data manipulation languages. Yet, even the network model was still too complex, requiring specialized knowledge. Structural changes required a change in the application program itself. The network model’s disadvantages led to new innovations though, just as the semantic web is a solution to the limitations of HTML.
The relational model was the next step. It is still in use today even with the semantic web, and relational DBs are a very important development in the history of data models. With independent tables, the ability to change structure without changing data access or applications along with its conceptual simplicity, SQL ad hoc query capability, and the relational database management system, relational databases are currently the standard. Out of the relational model, but still a part of the same relational model, is the Object Oriented Data Model.
The point I wish to make regarding RDF, is this: it appears to be an extension of the Object Oriented Data Model. The key to the OO model is that each object contains semantic content and semantic visual representations. Since the OODM has come out of a history of database system innovation, I believe RDF may be the next stage in semantic modeling. I’m optimistic about what is to come, and it’s clear that innovation comes from focusing on concrete problems.
The philosophical discussion about the ultimate nature of human psychology is interesting, but from a technical standpoint, we are not even close to a high level AI. So whether we can emulate Mind is a separate discussion altogether. The current Semantic Web projects do not claim to emulate human consciousness; however they do claim to develop more sophisticated and useful automated methods of gathering and sharing information about the Universe, inside and out. Why limit this development by evangelizing for the pursuit of the enigmatic and indefinable aspect of Mind instead when the discussion is really about solving information gathering and sharing needs and the mechanics behind this goal?
Why is the semantic web a better way to gather and share info? Because programmers are annotating millions of web pages with extra information basically. How does it work?
XML, XML Schema, RDF, RDF Schema and OWL are the standards used to provide syntax, restrict structures, and express relationships, show relations between classes. And they ultimately are the standards which operate the semantic web’s higher level functions. With these standards, machines get metadata about HTML pages outside of what is viewable on the page itself. These standards teach machines how to “think” in more human terms. The Semantic Web also allows users to annotate their own web pages so that automated research can take place.
In closing, data models evolve and the semantic web is the latest evolutionary step. As in evolution, the semantic web experiment strives to serves human interests more effectively. The problems and errors we encounter along the way will be faced, and new solutions posed.
In closing, I’d like to comment on the philosophical issues that arise out of this discussion,
can materialist natural philosophy of science can ever tackle human consciousness due to the inherent philosophical biases of naturalism towards discursive thought. Is Science incapable of studying its own consciousness due to a tendency towards duality? Is the ultimate reality of mind to be found in transcendance of the ego, in emptiness as it were? Even in Buddhist thought, the overemphasis transcending the ego and dwelling in the empty aspect of mind is considered sickness and another form of attachment anyway. So perhaps this aspect of mind is not necessarily that important to emulate anyway, even if it does have some bearing on ‘reality’.
Besides, comparing Buddhist psychology and the semantic web seem like comparing apples to oranges to me, especially since High AI is in its infancy. We’re jumping way ahead of ourselves if we attempt to emulate transcendant states of mind with computers. What about the projects developers are actually working on today? That is where the meat and potatoes of the semantic web lay. Why don’t more people educate themselves on what is actually being done with this technology rather than using it as an excuse to evanglize for a Buddhist meditation retreat? It beats me.
In sum, the Web is a database based on data models. Hierarchical, Network, Relational, and finally ERDM-O/RDM led us to the Semantic Web and the RDFDM. The Semantic Web potentially can improve data sharing and gathering. We should focus on the technical problems inherent in structuring the unstructured data on the web rather than debating psychological subtleties of consciousness, or writing off the scientific ability to study subtleties of mind effectively due to purported philosophical biases towards materialism.
The technical workings of the semantic web, its history, and its future are really the main point here. Thanks for your time. Regards,
Alistar_B

By: ronyoung

ronyoung — Mon, 15 Jan 2007 13:52:44 +0000

I certainly agree with your views on collective intelligence and helping to enable a better world. I agree with your distinction between information and knowledge and how we can look forward to technologies helping us to develop explicit knowledge on the web through multiple connections in context.
When I founded my km consulting firm, Knowledge Associates in 1993, in Cambridge UK, we thought we had the tools and answers to help individuals, teams and organizations better manage their knowledge.
We had no problem at all with tools to help people better capture, store, share, better collaborate, and amplify their knowledge. That works well.
The problem started higher up the km process, with getting organizations to invest in, and getting people to want to create, more meaning through effective ontologies metadata, etc. The problem centred around the ‘harvesting of new learnings and ideas’, and then turning this into better knowledge.
I welcome and support your view that people will now, to a degree, create their own metadata and tagging e.g. flickr and del.icio.us examples. I also welcome new developments in semantic metadata creation tools and techniques.
The other development I observed, whilst chairing many km conferences in Europe, was the debate on the development of content meaning, between ‘structured’ information tools based on logic and metadata on the one hand, and ‘unstructured’ information tools based on pattern recognition, statistical probability theory, and automatic metadata creation, on the other hand.
This reminded me of the analogy with the two hemispheres of the brain. For the brain to function well, in sensing, interpreting and creating meaning, it needs both the logical, digital, interpretation, and it needs the illogical, analog interpretation. I came to the conclusion that the next wave of tools needed both/and and not either/or.
It seems that your thinking has come a long way towards this, since then.
Once these tools are available, I believe that we will then move to the next level of, both people and machines, being able to harvest new learnings and ideas and truly create new knowledge faster and better than ever before.
That’s the quantum leap for me!
Good luck with your developments and tools for 2007.
Ron Young
http://www.knowledgeassociates.com
http://www.young-int.com

By: Бележки на Огнян Кулев

Бележки на Огнян Кулев — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:28:28 +0000

Бъдещата световна мрежа като глобално съзнание, изградено върху смислови мрежи

Попадна ми статия, която на популярен език говори за смисловите мрежи [Semantic Web] и защо са толкова важни: Minding The PlanetThe Meaning and Future of the Semantic Web.

By: How to Save the World

How to Save the World — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:04:34 +0000

Links for the Week — December 16, 2006: The Generosity and Contemplation Edition

By: Dream Meanings

Dream Meanings — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:45:15 +0000

Dream Meanings

10/17/2006, Peregrin Walker what does my dream mean, 10/16/2006, Peregrin Walker The Dream Inter

By: Wirearchy

Wirearchy — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:45:09 +0000

If Knowledge Is Power, What Will The Future Semantic Web Do To Traditional Power Structures ?

I don’t know .. and I would suggest nobody really does.
But as I completed reading Nova Spivack’s looong article …

By: Wirearchy

Wirearchy — Sun, 10 Dec 2006 08:15:09 +0000

Tomorrow Morning With My First Cup of Coffee …

I will read this article by Nova Spivack titled Minding The Planet – The Meaning And Future Of The …

By: Read/WriteWeb

Read/WriteWeb — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 20:12:53 +0000

Hakia – First Meaning-based Search Engine

There has been a lot of talk lately about 2007 being the year when we will see companies roll out Semantic Web technologies. The wave started with John Markoff’s article in NY Times and got picked up by Dan…

By: Innovation Creators

Innovation Creators — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 07:01:29 +0000

Web 3.0 – Humanity Vs. the Machines

John Markoff has an interesting article in the NY Times entitled Entrepreneurs See a Web Guided by Common Sense. The bottom line: Web 3.0 = The semantic web. Dan Fraber points to a great article by Nova Spivack, CEO of…

By: Nova Spivack

Nova Spivack — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 06:43:44 +0000

Hi Prasant, in this article, which is meant for people who may not particularly care to delve into the subtle distinction between dualistic consciousness and non-dualistic awareness, I have used the term “consciousness” to mean “awareness.” But you are correct that there is a distinction to be made here. From the perspective of that distinction, consciousness is a dualistic structuring of experience, while awareness is the basic unstructured capacity to experience whatever is experienced — whether structured or not.

By: Prasant

Prasant — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 05:35:25 +0000

Hi,
I discovered your writings a few weeks ago and find many of the things you write about very interesting. I haven’t finished reading this article about the Semantic Web, but found this bit intriguing:
=====
“But will these machine-minds be conscious? Will they be aware of the meanings they interpret, or will they just be automatons that are simply following instructions without any awareness of the meanings they are processing? I doubt that software will ever be conscious, because from what I can tell consciousness is an immaterial phenomena that is as fundamental as space, time and energy — or perhaps even more fundamental. [...]
But I think if you really want to create consciousness it’s much easier and more effective to just have children. That’s something ordinary mortals can do today with the technology they were born with.”
=====
Does this conflict with what you write about awareness at LongBets.com? At LongBets you mention that awareness does not have a physical cause. Therefore having children cannot create consciousness. I may be mixing up the idea of awareness and consciousness so please do correct me if I’m wrong. I guess, you can create consciousness by having children since they are conscious OF something/experiences. But you cannot create awareness since it is the absolute, singular non-dual entity that cradles consciousness.

By: Nova Spivack

Nova Spivack — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 19:37:13 +0000

Hi — thanks for the comment!
First, let’s agree not to start a long time-consuming debate on the mind-brain distinction, which at least we can agree neither of us can really prove either way!
But that said, in any case, I believe the mind is a function of the state of the brain, and since brain states are probably quantum states in the end, the state of the mind and the state of the brain are not two distinct things. The mind is like software and the brain is like hardware — but perhaps they’re really more unified, like firmware. But consciousness is something else altogether. I don’t think consciousness “comes from” the brain, although it is clearly somehow related to the brain. Similarly, electricity doesn’t “come from” a circuit, but it clearly is related to it in some sort of dependently-arising fashion.
As for meaning being “out there” objectively or not — although there is certainly information “out there” that information is not connected to concepts anywhere else but within minds, or brains, or mind-brains if you prefer. My point is just that the labels and the meanings of those labels are mental, they don’t exist on their own, independently of the minds that impute them.
Within systems things may indeed play roles, but unless a human, or something, interprets those roles by attaching them to context, ie. networks of concepts, they don’t have “meaning” for anyone. If there were no people at all, and no other intelligent things, then there wouldn’t be any meaning to anything. Here I don’t mean to imply that the word “meaning” and “purpose” or “function” are equivalent. They are not. Even though meaning is subjective, there may be some objective purpose or function of the life, the universe, and everything. If you happen to know the answer, do tell!

By: wsurowiec

wsurowiec — Mon, 06 Nov 2006 18:57:15 +0000

This is such a rich article I feel (note, not think) it may be more appropriate to post small, individual facets as comments.
Unfortunately (as this is tangential to your main thesis) this struck a chord for me:
“The mind is the organ of meaning – mind is where meaning is stored, interpreted and created. Meaning is not “out there” in the world, it is purely subjective, it is purely mental.”
I really believe (not think) I disagree. For possibly two different reasons.
The first involves a mind/brain discussion. If you hold that they are the same, then we disagree on two reasons otherwise just one.
Of larger import (given the significance of the statement) meaning may be out there. Just because we cannot connect the dots and state that meaning does not make your point. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.