Web 3.

0 > Semantic Web >

Web Object Retrieval
Zhezhu Wen
2008.11.20

1
 Brief Review - Web 2.0
• Collective wisdom oriented
– Folksonomy, social classification, social tagging.
– Wikipedia,
• People have own contents production tools
– Digital camera, cam coder, high performance PC.
– Youtube, user generated contents, flickr,
• Different contents access platform
– Kindle, iPod, PC, Internet Tablet, Mobile phone,
TiVo, game console,
• Age of the long tail
– Even the weakest voice have its own stage
– Blog, social network, podcast,
2
 How to define Web 3.0
Various destination has been envisioned by
researchers and industry leaders.
• Tim Burners-Lee: Well organized web data
• Dr. Eric Schmit: Cross platform, free,
lightweight applications
• Jerry Yang: Customizable application,
blurred distinction in terms of S/W dev.
• Reed Hastings: 10M of bandwidth to
download movie. (founder of Netflix)

3
 How to define Web 3.0 (ctnd.)
• Idealized web world that is yet to come.
• Some of the aspects are impossible to be
true in current technological capacity.
• But, different opinions converge in
following point.
– Web 3.0 as a set of technologies that offer
different new ways to help computers organize
and draw conclusions from online data.

4
 Web of Data
• Today’s web is nothing but data.
• Rich contents, but overflowing,
disorganized and chaotic.
• Heavy noises preventing signals.

5
 Semantic Web
• Syntax: How you say something.
• Semantic: Meaning behind what you say.
– I love technology Vs. I technology.
– Even syntax changes, still understand the
meaning.
• Internet + Web + Search engine. How we can
get better?
• A web that is smarter, more intelligent, that
actively help people with less noise, more
signals.
6
 Semantic Web (cntd.)
• Categorizing web data.
– Vision of Dewey and today’s web.
– Metadata – data describes the contents.

– Something we could learn from porn. website.

• Systems of computer readable labels about content.
– RDF(Resource Description Framework)
• A new system for locating and describing information.
– Ontologies
• That would define relationships between classification
categories.

7
 Critics
• Unrealistic to expect busy people and
business to create enough metadata to
make the work.
– Countermeasure: make better tools for
metadata
• How to relate those controversial words in
ontologies?
– Marriages Vs. monogamy, polygamy, same-
sex relationships etc.

8
 Wrap up the semantic part.
• Under the semantic web concept, web is…
– Becoming more like a database
– With Result oriented search.
• Business are already adapt the
technologies in organizing and mining
information for themselves.
• Two big steps:
– Making the World Wide Database
– Training artificial intelligence to software.

9
 Web Object Retrieval
• Object has attributes and actions.
• Object is multi-faceted concept.
• Today’s search:
– Searching single instance of attributes or
actions.
– One dimension data.
– Organized search results again, in order to
build up that object.

10
 Web Object Retrieval (contd.)
• Web object:
– People, product, papers, places,
– http://products.live.com - product
– http://libra.msra.cn/Default.aspx - papers

• Revolutionary Example:
– Social relation search: http://renlifang.msra.cn/
– “Obama’s cabinet ”, “Bush’s cabinet”, “Jesus”
– Reminding of influence in social network search.

11
 Conclusion
• Common understanding resides in
development world.
– Whatever reason drives it…
– Forms voluntarily…
• It is a wishful trend that we are going to…
• Not required to every development entity.
– Data mining technologies are backing up to fill
the gap for those who didn’t or couldn’t
participate.
– With certain degree of errors…

12
 REFERENCES
• Web 3.0, wikipedia.org
• A Smarter Web, MIT Technology Review, March 2007.
• Web Object Retrieval, WWW Conference, May 2007.
• Future of the World Wide Web, Tim Berners-Lee March
2007.
• The Long Tail: Why the Future of Business is Selling
Less of More, Chris Anderson, 2006

13