- home
- reviews
- news
- downloads
- cnet tv
On TV.com: NARUTO SHIPPUDEN Episode 140: Fate
- log in
- join CNET
- welcome,
- my profile
- log out

Comments on: Google exec challenges Berners-Lee

Director of Search says Net pioneer's Semantic Web vision could be hamstrung by incompetent Web masters.

Add a Comment (Log in or register) Showing 1 of 3 pages (53 Comments)

google has it right.

by sundance_tree July 18, 2006 7:31 PM PDT

I agree with google, they I disagree with the incompetence part, its mainly laziness and that's human nature. If the server runs or the website is seen, then its ok. You can compare this with html and XML, where readers (ie browsers) of the former is more forgiving (ie you can still see the content even if the html is missing some tags) and the latter (ie parsers) more strict. google is right in not trusting people to be disciplined. Some tagging technnologies and a lot of AI is the way to go to make sense of all these.

Like this Reply to this comment

Beyond "human nature"
by ghostofitpast July 19, 2006 9:18 AM PDT: Yes, what we are really talking about here is human nature; but that is still only part of the story. What most of the techno-centric community does not understand is that every technology artifact is based in three "worlds:" the objective, the subjective, and the social. (This is a generalization of Habermas' observation that all interactions take place in those three worlds simultaneously.) Berners-Lee would really like the World Wide Web to be strictly an artifact of the objective world, which may be all right if you are trying to write a doctoral thesis in artificial intelligence but does not wash if the Web lies at the heart of your business model. Norvig's rebuttal addressed issues in both the subjective and social worlds, and I doubt that anyone would dispute the fact that Google's success has as much to do with their successful management (even if intuitive) of the social world as with their efforts to build the best artifacts according to criteria of the objective world.

However, beyond the subjective and social flaws that Norvig identified, the fact is that the "semantic" infrastructure of the "Semantic Web" is equally flawed. As I have tried to argue in my own blog (at <http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Mff23hgidqmHGqbcv.lfskakEtS6qLVHUEMFUG4-?cq=1&l=36&u=40&mx=43&lmt=5&p=6>),
you cannot have an ontology that is not grounded in phenomenology. In Semantic Web language, this means that the objective nature of the RDF (Resource Description Framework) will always fall short of the demands of the subjective and social worlds.

So isn't history just repeating itself? Ten years ago we had the SGML advocates who were trying to push for the formal structuring of all content. The limited amount of support for that vision was quickly blown away by the advent of HTML, and the resulting rush to search engine technology demonstrated that structure was not as important as the SGML folks wanted to believe. Guess what? NOW it is not as important as the Semantic Web advocates want to believe!; Like this

Beyond "human nature"
by ghostofitpast July 19, 2006 9:20 AM PDT: Yes, what we are really talking about here is human nature; but that is still only part of the story. What most of the techno-centric community does not understand is that every technology artifact is based in three "worlds:" the objective, the subjective, and the social. (This is a generalization of Habermas' observation that all interactions take place in those three worlds simultaneously.) Berners-Lee would really like the World Wide Web to be strictly an artifact of the objective world, which may be all right if you are trying to write a doctoral thesis in artificial intelligence but does not wash if the Web lies at the heart of your business model. Norvig's rebuttal addressed issues in both the subjective and social worlds, and I doubt that anyone would dispute the fact that Google's success has as much to do with their successful management (even if intuitive) of the social world as with their efforts to build the best artifacts according to criteria of the objective world.

However, beyond the subjective and social flaws that Norvig identified, the fact is that the "semantic" infrastructure of the "Semantic Web" is equally flawed. As I have tried to argue in my own blog, you cannot have an ontology that is not grounded in phenomenology. In Semantic Web language, this means that the objective nature of the RDF (Resource Description Framework) will always fall short of the demands of the subjective and social worlds.

So isn't history just repeating itself? Ten years ago we had the SGML advocates who were trying to push for the formal structuring of all content. The limited amount of support for that vision was quickly blown away by the advent of HTML, and the resulting rush to search engine technology demonstrated that structure was not as important as the SGML folks wanted to believe. Guess what? NOW it is not as important as the Semantic Web advocates want to believe!; Like this View reply Hide reply
Processing

Google is starting to sound like Microsoft
by btrogdon July 18, 2006 7:40 PM PDT: First let me say I like Google. Hell, I even like Microsoft. But Peter sounds more like a protectionist than a visionary.

The Semantic Web can take us from the Information Age to the Knowledge Age. Is it gong to be messy... yup. Are incompetent "Web Masters" going to throw a wrench in the works... yes sir. Is it one of the most exciting evolutions taking place on the web... sure looks like it.

Sir Tim saw something 10 years ago that changed the world and allowed for the creation of Google. I think I'll keep reading about RDF and OWL just to be on the safe side.; Like this Reply to this comment

Google Be Creative
by rtuinenburg July 18, 2006 8:09 PM PDT: Why dont you punish webmasters for writing bad html by ranking them lower. Use your google power if you want webmasters to do a better job.; Like this Reply to this comment

It is correct to say...
by Mendz July 19, 2006 1:49 AM PDT: ... the potential success of the semantic web relies on establishing standards and policies in order to attract participants. It is an overreaction to state that people are not doing "it". The point is, there is really no clear standard and policy on how to do it. In addition, what's in it for people to participate?

Google's interest is on the Google branding, identification and differentiation as opposed to just mixing their indexed information with the rest of the world. With Berners-Lee's semantic web, there is no such thing as Google, Yahoo! or MSN/Windows Live search results: they're all just information to be treated the same way in the semantic web.

Eventually, it may happen that even the search business itself is no longer as lucrative because it becomes a service that needs no level of priority or special treatment in the semantic web. All search engines would eventually be web service/API engines for the semantic web to use.

Does it matter which result paid for what? Of course not. What matters is that the result would match the needs of the AI. As a result, the customer base of Google, Yahoo! and MSN/Windows Live search reduce to those entities that would directly take advantage of the semantic web. Unless, one of these search engines move up to deliver the semantic web/AI itself as a service... Then maybe they can save themselves from becoming just one of those things happening behind the scenes...; Like this Reply to this comment

Gaming With Uncertainty
by Len Bullard July 19, 2006 6:39 AM PDT: As long as the system can be gamed, as long as quantum entanglement in terms can be exploited, as long as the skills required for the semantic web are out of reach for the majority of authors, HTML will remain the dominant language attractor and search engines will remain the dominant force providing feedback to users.

TimBL is simply wrong. Norvig knows it. The Semantic Web will continue to be a niche application framework applicable only where there are sufficient skills and incentives to provide fully-related and ontologically consistent information. Even then, the quarrel over the authority and correctness of the mappings will not be resolved.

Abduction. Induction. Deduction. Confabulation. Those are the processes you have to best to make a consistent semantic for any set of topics by scope and reach. 100% consistency will fail in the first and last processes. You can't beat uncertainty; you can harness it for navigation and discovery but you can't make it go away.; Like this Reply to this comment

few points
by harmattan July 19, 2006 8:41 AM PDT: Incompetence:
IMHO having the right tools help. Problem with HTML is probably exaggerated - there are plenty of good tools out there. While dealing with RDF - it could be even easier with the right tools and approach. It seems RSS is widely accepted even without too many tools available ? though it?s just a scratch on the surface of what could be done with that technology.
Competition:
I think the same true for HTML content as well. It is being shared for different reasons. The same reasons probably would be true for RDF/OWL content.
Security:
Security issues are considered in the Semantic Web architecture (i.e. digital signature, trust). http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html
Approach is explicit, which is better then trying to use sophisticated but implicit rating algorithm to differentiate ?real? content from ?fake?.
While in theory it?s there - it?s yet to be seen in practice. There are many bumps ahead and away as adoption (slowly) moves forward.; Like this Reply to this comment

Verde interesting....
by ggazcamper July 20, 2006 12:53 PM PDT: My first thought is that a model for a semantic network on such a scale already exists in the information gathering system of the intelligence community, but I'm not sure that it is very effective. Perhaps that community can look to such a grand scale Internet Semantic Network for tips? :-)

Second thought: Let's see, how to know whom to trust and whom not to trust...OR, how do I get those whom I want to trust to trust me (e.g., colleagues in an endevour for truth or opponents to trust my diseminated misinformation) and how do I get those whom I want to mistrust me to do so (e.g., those I want to mistrust my truthful information, which I wish to share with a colleague on an open line but don't want to have it believed by my opponent?)

Perhaps the 'Internet' Semantic Network would work better on an extended 'intranet'-like environment?

Please, someone tell Mad magazine about this. It would make great reading in the spy column (does that still exist?) Nevertheless, it is an extremely seductive intellectual exercise!; Like this Reply to this comment

Neal Stephenson would be a good place to start...
by jasred July 20, 2006 4:23 PM PDT: In his Baroque Cycle of historical novels he depicts various "Natural Philosophers" working on the "philosophic language". Now I am not an historian, but I can imagine that this indeed was one endeavour of the early members of the Royal Society. It made me think about the idealism I held for learning Esperato when I was youthful many moons ago. Now I'm flat out trying to learn MXL and Web Services! - a bit hard for an old bloke :-).; Like this Reply to this comment

Interesting Concept
by Jean-Pierre Khoueiri July 25, 2006 11:41 AM PDT: It seems that Tim Berners Lee is and the Googles' Peter Norvig both
have valid points, as usual only time will tell what happens.

JP, Director
www.ConstantClick.com; Like this Reply to this comment