TechFold - Bold tech & web commentary

Predictions for 2008, #3: Semantic apps will continue to suck

Well, “suck” is probably too strong a work. How about “Semantic apps will continue to be completely irrelevant?”

2007 was a year heavy on buzz around so-called next generation, 3.0, semantic apps - things like PowerSet & Hakia (natural language search), Spock (people search), Twine (who knows), and so on.

Well, after a year of anticipation, each is either unlaunched (powerset), unloved (spock is weak), or unheard of (twine).

Consider the value propositions:

1. Spock promised powerful people search, and so far has delivered a (drum roll)… social network scraper. See “idiocy writ large” for reference.
2. Next gen search engines promised better results than google and so far have delivered… junk. See my off the cuff Hakia vs. Google comparo for reference.
3. Apps like Twine promise to automate the discovery of relationships between your disparate bits of information - but if you listen to the video there’s a lot of buzzwords (semantic graph! open! graph! wikis! ontologies!) and little substance (its got smarts!) beyond keyword parsing.

…so my prediction is that Google will continue to kick ass, the so-called next-gen startups will continue to languish or sit or beta-purgatory, and slowly the concept of “semantic” will fade from the public eye as VC’s find something else to latch onto.

(Quick update: Twine has also committed what I consider to be the cardinal sin of marketing plans - attempting to create their own vernacular, i.e.: in scoble’s video above one “twines” a link, and creates a “twine” about something - arggh. Its as bad as the now defunct Teqlo)

2008, google, hakia, powerset, predictions, semantic, spock, twine web3.0

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Failure of Tagging is what’s driving Web 3.0

Tagging is the dream that everyone more or less forgot about.

Tags - little topical keyword snippets that were supposed to herald the start of a new, exciting web of user-classified content. By appending your blogposts/photos/videos/user-generated-content (ugc) with a few simple keywords, the web was expected to “self-organize” into an organic, emergent user-powered taxonomy that would provide the framework for parsing out “meaning.” It was going to make it easy to find deep information on any topic - linking up the long tail of all content types into a parseable, coherent, human-organized whole. Effectively, tagging was intended to provide a distributed, free, human powered search index - one publicly-owned, free super-index to rule them all.

Unfortunately, it didn’t happen. The practicalities of execution were pushed by the wayside in rush to embrace the decentralized nature of ugc under the guise of woodsy, campfire “folksonomies.” A point of balance between “free” and “structured” was never identified, and “Tagging” was never executed in a way that would give it a fighting chance to live up to its promise; a hodge-podge of formats, options, and implementations guaranteed that the concept’s deployments would remain silo’d and keep conceptually linked material fragmented. The glow from each of the folksonomy campfires didn’t extend off of its own URL.

As a result, what we’ve come to accept as “tagging” is the silo’d view. Flickr and del.icio.us are the two brightest burning fires here - both have deep tag taxonomies that have been successfully integrated into the core of their respective user experiences, but neither is designed to extend outwards from their individual campground silos.

And therein lies the core of the problem: a standardized means of sharing tags was never devised, and as anathematic (sp?) as it might be to the “open” nature of Web 2.0, a clearing-house mechanism to reconcile divergent taxonomies never arose. Technorati tried and failed to provide this: remember the days when “tag search” was a prominent Technorati home page option? Its not any more. Do you see “Tag Search” on Google Blog Search? No - because Google’s algorithm does a better job of stitching together meaning than user-supplied tags.

The fundamental broken-ness of tagging has been compounded over time by user’s recognition that outside of those certain successful silos, tagging really has no point - consider the example of tag-based classified search engine Edgeio - which just went belly up. Or “geotagging” as a concept outside of Flickr. At the core of the dismisssal is the user’s desire for consistency - with a Google-esque algorithm you at least know that the logic that generated your SERP (search engine results page) was applied consistently; with tags each content source has its own human-powered logic which likely bears limited resemblance to anyone else’s. Thus - people search by tag less, leading content producers to tag less, etc. - an unvirtuous cycle.

So - in a nutshell, tagging as a Web 2.0 concept is a mess: its fragmented and forgotten.

Let’s look at how it got there, and possibly how it can come back:

1. Standardized means of tagging: Standards. Yes, they add value, as clunky and overbearing and non-west-coast-hipster-info-wants-to-be-free as the concept may sound. Consider: from a technical standpoint, how do you describe what a tag is? Its meta-data, sure. But how is it content encoded? Is it one word only, or n-words? How do you separate multiple words? Are blog post categories “tags” as well, or are they strictly user-supplied? What about other meta-data that may be collected - like EXIF stuff from pictures? IMHO, a standard definition of what a tag actually is would have been a good first step to interoperability, laying out a baseline for connecting tags between sites. You can successfully implement tagging on a site without giving much thought to these questions - but you won’t be able to do much else with your tag data.
2. Standardized means of communicating tags: Tags in RSS in a non-proprietary format - seems like a no brainer to me. Tags on pages: the “rel=tag” concept never seemed to get consistently executed; let’s nail down a crawler-friendly spec, and complement it with an useful meta tag spec. Take a look at a Flickr photo page and hit “view source” - how are the tags identified as such? Not with a rel attribute. Take a look at del.icio.us - no rel attributes there too. And, each blogging platform and plugin has its own, different way of going about it too. No wonder Technorati gave up on tags - crawling this stuff is a nightmare.
3. Standardized “complement” tags: Before you get your back up on “standardizing” tagging, I’m proposing a two-tiered tag system: Date, time, latitude, longtitude, camera type, movie length, format, etc. are meta-data types that lend themselves to structure. A community defined “standard” for tagging time, for instance, might simply list descriptors in different languages - “morning,” “evening,” “mid-day” - etc., which content platforms (WordPress, Flickr, etc.) could then add to posts in a consistent fashion. That would allow for searches along the lines of “media:pictures [taken in the] time:evening [around] location:Sydney+Harbour.”

Ok - so lets sum it all up: what I’m advocating isn’t really about tagging at all: its about meta-data interoperability, for which tagging is one, convenient vector. Convenient because bits and pieces of the technology are in place already, and because there’s some familiarity with it all ready.

So - my suggestion is to bring tagging back by creating a body like the RSS Advisory Board, composed of individuals and organizational stakeholders, to kickstart a “Universal Tag Metadata Format” (UTMF). Publish an initial spec, get some buy in from the big players (Google, Flickr, etc.), and then try this again.

In the title for this post, I note that the failure of tagging is driving “Web 3.0:” if you think about it, the promise of the semantic web is more or less the same as that of tagging - information that knows what it is and its context. Much of the the 3.0 development hinges on AI techniques to achieve what human tagging hasn’t - consistent, exhaustive classification of information so that it can be linked together. I’m of the mind that truly effective AI is still decades away, and that most “3.0″ plays are just extensions of 1.0 algorithmic search engine technology.

The wait for AI leaves a significant gap - which well thought-out human tagging structure could fill.

semantics, tagging, tags web3.0

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Microsoft’s Head in the Clouds: Positioning for Success

CNET reports on Microsoft’s buzz-worthy but vague “cloud computing” plans this morning.

The concept of the “cloud OS” or “internet OS” has been generating more and more discussion over time. IMHO, the cloud is the true Web 3.0 - the distributed, ubiquitous web. Its being driven by the fact that people’s data, documents, applications, preferences, and tools are now scattered across many devices, platforms, websites, PC’s, set top boxes, gaming systems, and phones - our connected environment begs for the portability, synchronization, and interoperability that are enabled by a true Web OS.

Microsoft’s concept of cloud services coupled with edge computing positions them to deliver. For example: I want my Garmin eTrex to automatically upload paths of trips I’ve made in universally parseable geoRSS, and I want to be able to later share those trips as maps around the dinner table on my iPhone using Google Maps. Microsoft aims to provide the service and storage cloud infrastructure to make that possible, as well as the edge bits (the software on the eTrex) to knit it all together.

Essentially, Microsoft wants to replicate the success factors of their desktop dominance by making their web services platform the easiest and most common to work on, just as they did with their desktop platform. Creating a strategy to deliver on that objective comprehensively speaks well for Microsoft’s continued success vs. Yahoo’s atrocious API mishmash, or Google’s compulsive, inconsistent delivery schedule.

For a long time, I’ve been critical of Microsoft’s big bet on Ray Ozzie - after all, his Groove application was an absolute horror. But if this is his vision, and if he can get Microsoft to execute on it, then I’ll take back my criticisms.

Ah yes: we all know how much MS loves Developers. Hat tip, Parislemon.

cloud, google, internetos, microsoft, web3.0 yahoo

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!