tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post3630281240831306185..comments2024-01-25T07:53:27.067-05:00Comments on Thinking Space: The initial signal of Web 3.0Yihong Dinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08410466834942147505noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-8544278959368693562008-07-17T16:11:00.000-04:002008-07-17T16:11:00.000-04:00I agree to you, gregory. The change currently happ...I agree to you, gregory. The change currently happens at the technology realm is a reflection of change in the deeper level. In fact, the names from Web 1.0 to Web 3.0 is a high level description of change of life in the real human world. By this sense, it is not about how data on the Web is going to be linked and so on, it is about how these technological innovations bring the change to our human society. This is the real core of Web evolution. <BR/><BR/>Thank you and your comments always help me think better.<BR/><BR/>YihongYihong Dinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410466834942147505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-86133938264382743962008-07-17T15:11:00.000-04:002008-07-17T15:11:00.000-04:00oh, there is definitely intrinsic coherence underl...oh, there is definitely intrinsic coherence underlying this shift... in fact, there is intrinsic coherence, period. the shift in tech abilities and metaphors is simply a step along the way of ultimately aligning with this coherence<BR/><BR/>technology is just the out-picturing, or the manifestation, of what consciousness can already do <BR/><BR/>though, in some circles we need to take care when using the word consciousness, have to use awareness, or even mind, sometimesgregoryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14408369948377761936noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-79807545999955011242008-07-15T10:50:00.000-04:002008-07-15T10:50:00.000-04:00Yihong,Re:On the other hand, however, to determine...Yihong,<BR/><BR/>Re:<BR/><<<BR/>On the other hand, however, to determine whether a progress is essential for stage transition in Web evolution, we should watch whether the progress precisely addresses the primary contradiction existed in the previous evolutionary stage. In the stage of Web 2.0, the primary contradiction is the conflict between the ever-increasing amount of Web 2.0 resources and the duplicated copies of resources in varied Web 2.0 sites. Hence the key to solve the problem is making data portable in contrast to being linked. <BR/>>><BR/><BR/>I have tried to bring clarity to these matters of "Data Portability" and "Data Access by Reference" in a number of presentations [1][2].<BR/><BR/>"Data Portability" and "Data Access by Reference" are mutually inclusive approaches to Web de-silo-fication. They both address aspects of computing data predate the Web i.e. we could import and export data between desktop and networked applications using standard formats alongside the fact that we could manipulate data access by reference using open data access standards.<BR/><BR/>We don't want to keep on typing in the same profile data every time we encounter a new Web hosted Application Service. Likewise, we don't want to perform a wholesale import export of our data as the remedy either. This is where "Data Access by Reference" comes into play; I simply give each service my Profile URI and they can decide whether to import or simply manage a data access pointer.<BR/><BR/>Web 3.0 (in my eyes) is a valid moniker for describiing the emergence of smart interlinked data sources that can now be used in conjunction with the plethora of REST or SOAP services out in the wild.<BR/><BR/>In short, we are now completing the M-V-C model on the Web even though we've taken the V-C-M route :-)<BR/><BR/><BR/>Links:<BR/>1. <A HREF="http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/presentations/DataPortability_and_DataSpaces/DataPortability_and_DataSpaces.html" REL="nofollow">Data Portability & Linked Data Spaces</A><BR/>2. <A HREF="http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/presentations/Creating_Deploying_Exploiting_Linked_Data2/Creating_Deploying_Exploiting_Linked_Data2.html" REL="nofollow">Linked Data Planet Keyonte</A> re. Creating, Deploying, and Exploiting Linked Data.Kingsley Idehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08186794286722227377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-89748567294361798782008-07-15T03:21:00.000-04:002008-07-15T03:21:00.000-04:00Dear Kingsley,Thank you for mentioning linked data...Dear Kingsley,<BR/><BR/>Thank you for mentioning linked data. <BR/><BR/>Unquestionably you are right, the emergence of linked data is a remarkable event in Web evolution. By linking Web data (in contrast to Web documents) together, we are approaching a better structured Web and information on the Web becomes more accessible and useful.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, however, to determine whether a progress is essential for stage transition in Web evolution, we should watch whether the progress precisely addresses the primary contradiction existed in the previous evolutionary stage. In the stage of Web 2.0, the primary contradiction is the conflict between the ever-increasing amount of Web 2.0 resources and the duplicated copies of resources in varied Web 2.0 sites. Hence the key to solve the problem is making data portable in contrast to being linked. <BR/><BR/>In the other words, linked but non-portable data would not solve the primary problem in Web 2.0. Portable but unlinked data, however, can still solve the primary problem in Web 2.0. Because of this reason, I have chosen the progress of data portability but not linked data to be the key of invoking the transition towards Web 3.0. <BR/><BR/>Does it mean that the issue of linked data is less important than the issue of data portability? Not at all. What I want to say is that the time of linked data has not come yet. Before we well solve the problem of data portability, linking all Web data into a uniform, queriable, structured database is not so valuable as we may think. The reason is that we may have to face too heavily the problem of data duplication that the quality of linked data becomes very poor. Only if we have solved the problem of data portability, when linked data are built upon portable data, we may access the real compelling power of a web of data. <BR/><BR/>In few days, I am asked to write a guest post for Alt Search Engines about Web evolution. In it, I will discuss more about my vision of Web evolution and you may know better about what I think, I believe. Look forward to hearing more from you after the new post.<BR/><BR/>best,<BR/><BR/>YihongYihong Dinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410466834942147505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-84957223631663100222008-07-15T01:56:00.000-04:002008-07-15T01:56:00.000-04:00Yihong,You are making valid points, but as you kno...Yihong,<BR/><BR/>You are making valid points, but as you know, making explicit connections to history ultimately aids the causual observer trying to comprehend the inflection that is clearly in motion.<BR/><BR/>Your nice post makes no connections to the following:<BR/><BR/>1. The gradual emergence of Structured Data on the Web<BR/>2. The emergence of Linked Data (the use of the RDF Data Model and HTTP based RDF Data Source Names or URIs as exemplified by the Linking Open Data communities many efforts e.g DBpedia<BR/><BR/>Data Portability is the broad mental model for what is in fact Open Data Access by Reference on the Web (aka Linked Data Web).<BR/><BR/>Web 2.0 was never about structured data sources. It stopped at APIs as the focus was coding and APIs. Thus, we now have a proliferation of "Data Silos" amongst other things.<BR/><BR/>Web 2.0 isn't bad per se, especially as it will be remembered as the Web evolution stage that made the need for a Linked Data Web much clearer.<BR/><BR/>The Linked Data Web itself, ultimately brings clarity to the broader Semantic Web vision; a process that is playing out right now :-)<BR/><BR/>More than anyting else, we are seeing the gradual death of marketing "Labels" and the gradual journey towards "Core Concepts". At the end of the day, the label "Web 3.0" doesn't matter (I agree with your usage though). What matters is the fact that the Web is becoming a Distributed collection of loosely coupled Structured Databases, and the is a great thing bearing in mind the impending challenges that "Information Overload" will ultimately expose to all Web Users.Kingsley Idehenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08186794286722227377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-57054978037110114212008-07-14T15:40:00.000-04:002008-07-14T15:40:00.000-04:00to complain about the term 3.0 is just as useless....to complain about the term 3.0 is just as useless...<BR/>What matters are the changes, nevermind the names. The name issue is so 2.0 like!Daniel Heisehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16252684651121120750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-14606866341146327882008-07-14T14:43:00.000-04:002008-07-14T14:43:00.000-04:00Matt,Certainly not. But at present, we do not have...Matt,<BR/><BR/>Certainly not. But at present, we do not have a better term to describe the next stage after "Web 2.0." Web 3.0 is the closest one that can immediately let ordinary people know what happens. No other terms have this power of message delivery, though I agree to you that "Web 3.0" is not a pretty term at all.<BR/><BR/>YihongYihong Dinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08410466834942147505noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35360257.post-41575700895923208712008-07-14T14:40:00.000-04:002008-07-14T14:40:00.000-04:00Damn, do we really have to throw around useless te...Damn, do we really have to throw around useless terms such as "web 3.0" already?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com