Comments on: Are You Ready For Web 3.0?

By: Net World

Net World — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:36:33 +0000

web3.0 seams the actual implementation into real life. Tim Burner’s imagination is now going to rule the actual life.

Heads Off to you Tim

Regards.
S.N. Jha

By: dX-Xel

dX-Xel — Fri, 01 Jun 2007 07:45:45 +0000

hmm…I think I need to plan to develop web 4.0..hhehee

By: Tim

Tim — Fri, 13 Apr 2007 13:43:30 +0000

I agree with Jobe; Google starts losing its edge when the first page of results (from well-selected search terms) only produces conglomerate advertising pages that have no real content except what they scraped from other sites.

I’m not really sure what George was saying…sounded like “data quality sucks, and thus a semantic web is meaningless”. But he said it so much better than that, which is why his version will get semanticized and mine won’t. :-)

By: George A. Maney

George A. Maney — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 01:06:14 +0000

There are many miracles on this map. Semantic databases, semantic search, SaaS, (SOA), and such require very high levels of Semantic Web information quality and information safety to be more that trivially useful. This just isn’t going to happen any time soon.
Note that Internet document web is information unsafe. Even so, it works great. The Internet data web is different. Any workable, worthwhile Internet data web must be intrinsically information safe.
All Internet data web architectures so far start with metaphysical information modeling architectures. Today all mainstream information modeling is metaphysical. Entity-relationship and object-oriented are the predominant forms. RDF and all alternatives are just alternative flavors of metaphysical pattern modeling.
Metaphysical modeling is intrinsically low quality and thus intrinsically unsafe. This is readily demonstrable. So metaphysical information modeling mashup interoperability, insurability, and immortality cannot be modeled or managed. This is a killer. It eliminates nearly all customer value potential in data web model mashups.
Today’s best institutional data processing operations are a sanity check. Today these are severely limited in scope and scale by workable information safety and quality limits. Model mashups within and among software packages requires ruinously expensive recurrent reverse engineering. Most high value mashups are impractical or infeasible. Those mashups that are done often suffer from reliability problems.
Any workable data web build-out will, in effect, be a huge worldwide data center. This will be millions of times larger than the largest data center operations today. This will involve myriad thousands of independent modeling contexts and myriad millions of models. This simply isn’t going to fly with any metaphysical information modeling approach.
Today alternative mechanistic subject modeling methods are limited to the applied science automation software world. These scale without limit and provide fully manageable information safety and quality. Any workable Internet data web must and will ultimately these alterative methods.
Today these mature methods are unknown in the mainstream software world. There is no commodity infrastructure support for this sort of modeling. Moreover, this sort of modeling is incompatible with the huge legacy of SQL RDB data maintained today.
So for the foreseeable future the Internet data web will be limited to a relatively small range of tactical applications that can tolerate information unsafely. These will provide some trivial value. The mother lode of Internet data web innovation value, amounting to at least a trillion dollars in financial market capitalization, will remain far out of reach.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:49:15 +0000

> I think the big issue is convincing the web-world that web standards are
> the pre-requisite to everything to come in the future.

that is the job of web developers in my view, and not for those in marketing who have absolutely no idea about software development… they should just butt out of it.

it is we the developers who advice our clients on what best suits their needs and trying to convince clients that standards are the way to go, even if it increases development time and costs (to a certain degree at least) is well worth it in the long run isn’t easy but then it never is, is it?

what makes our lifes more difficult is some -beep- in the media making a song and dance about technology that is hyped that the client reads about and then wants though it’s not in their interests.

i’m still bemused… dr livingston

By: malikyte

malikyte — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 14:21:14 +0000

@Jobe: If you’re getting content ripped from you, add a (hidden via CSS?) link back to your site as the source of the content. It’s not an end-all solution, but it is free advertising if you use it to your advantage.

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 08:34:36 +0000

Agree about numbering, it’s all marketing rubbish. I think the big issue is convincing the web-world that web standards are the pre-requisite to everything to come in the future. People will always use the latest ‘toys’ that come along, but it’s all just a passing fad unless the standards on the web are improving. It would be great if the term web standards and all it stood for was a more popular buzz word than Web 2.0.

By: gout

gout — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 05:31:08 +0000

Technology is created to meet a demand. Unless you can predict what the demand will be in the future, you will be unable to predict the technology that will meet it. I would bet that the person who made the above graph has no idea what future technology demand will look like any more than anyone else. But keep trying none the less.

Also, without a standards based web future technology(demand or not) will have a difficult time coming to fruition on the web.

By: jobe

jobe — Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:36:54 +0000

One key thing will be to limit the damage machines already do to search engines. I’m forever finding stuff I’ve written garbled up and put on some aggregate site that is obviously run by a poorly written machine. The dam things end up with better Google rank than I do, so my stuff just gets buried within a few weeks. I think most of these junk sites don’t really care what kind of damage they do to organizing content so long as real people stumble onto them and give them traffic.

sensorymetrics.com

By: casitecenter

casitecenter — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 19:13:44 +0000

first let web 2 come in and then talk about web 3 lol
thanks