Despite its marketing overtones, a batch of technologies that make up the Semantic Web could give Google some serious competition.
Up until last month, Web 3.0's future was in doubt. Wikipedians were divided about the legitimacy of the concept, and those skeptical of the term deleted the Web 3.0 entry from the online encyclopedia five separate times during 2006. After this series of near-death experiences, the article was put under protection last October.
The fervor of a few Wikipedians to kill the heir to Web 2.0 -- itself a tiresome term for many these days since becoming a trademarked conference -- in its cradle has ebbed since then.
In February, a deletion review for the entry concluded, with the majority of Wikipedia contributors voting to accept the legitimacy of the term.
The watershed moment may well have come last November when New York Times reporter John Markoff legitimized Web 3.0 in an article that described the term as a movement to add meaning and structure to the vast amount of information on the Web. Web 3.0 is closely associated with another trendy term, the Semantic Web.
Semantics is the study of meaning, yet as Nova Spivack, CEO and founder of stealth social search startup Radar Networks, concedes, "The Semantic Web doesn't mean anything to a lot of people, ironically."
The same can be said about the term Web 3.0, which has the ring of marketing fluff.
The fact that people are skeptical of such terms doesn't surprise Michael Schmitt, CEO of enterprise search company Siderean. "I would be too," he says. "Remember 10 years ago when Corba [Common Object Request Broker Architecture] was the rave? I was at an industry show and three speakers in a row talked about Corba, Corba, Corba. The fourth speaker got up there and said, Corba, Schmorba, who cares? You've got to make your customers happy, make product, ship product, and at the end of the day, run a business.' The latest buzzword is meaningless."
Yet Schmitt argues that the Semantic Web means a great deal in terms of time and money. "These principles are becoming Internet standards that are moving into businesses," he says. "The change is happening not because of any particular label, but because of the three things that matter to CEOs: raise revenues, manage assets, or cut costs."
These Internet standards include the Resource Description Framework (RDF), the Web Ontology Language (OWL), SPARQL (a query language for RDF and the Semantic Web), and other protocols. Though dauntingly obtuse to the nontechnical, these specifications spell out a way to make data more valuable by making it more accessible and useful.
These standards, for example, could be used to encode relationships between data records in XML. Knowing how objects in a data set relate to each other allows search queries to be answered by inference, in addition to keyword pattern matching. Thus, someone querying a Star Wars database that supports semantic protocols could search for "Darth Vader's son's sister" and would find documents relating to Princess Leia, despite the absence of that specific phrase in any of the found documents.
The Agile ArchiveWhen it comes to managing data, donít look at backup and archiving systems as burdens and cost centers. A well-designed archive can enhance data protection and restores, ease search and e-discovery efforts, and save money by intelligently moving data from expensive primary storage systems.
2014 Analytics, BI, and Information Management SurveyITís tried for years to simplify data analytics and business intelligence efforts. Have visual analysis tools and Hadoop and NoSQL databases helped? Respondents to our 2014 InformationWeek Analytics, Business Intelligence, and Information Management Survey have a mixed outlook.
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Nov. 10, 2014Just 30% of respondents to our new survey say their companies are very or extremely effective at identifying critical data and analyzing it to make decisions, down from 42% in 2013. What gives?