Some days ago a new service launched, called Zemanta, which integrates with the most popular blogging platforms (Wordpress, blogger, typepad) to suggest tags, links and images for your post.

After installing the firefox plugin, zemanta runs next to your content editor. When you have written a post of at least 300 characters, zemanta provides a list of resources.

Although, the service is still in an early version and there are some slight problems, it is nonetheless a very promising application.

Andy Beard’s review of zemanta is very thorough, if you want more information about it.

While reading about the service, it made me wonder how semantic is actually Zemanta?

The delay of the Semantic Web

What takes so long for the further development of the semantic web? In his interview on the semantic web, Tim Berners Lee explained that the technologies are already there; what is missing the implementation of these technologies in the current systems. The way I understand the complex term “semantic web”, what is required for complete semantic functionality is:

• semantic applications
• implementation of semantic technologies in the current systems

This implementation is actually a fundamental aspect of the semantic web, since it will certify the correct interaction between machines, databases and humans.

How semantic is Zemanta?

Zemanta comes in the blogosphere as one of the first semantic applications, open for the wider public (twine is still in ‘invite Beta’ version). Zemanta uses a semantic algorithm, which - according to the ReadWriteWeb - compares

the words in a blog post to their pre-indexed database of other content in order to suggest related items which will display next to your blog post.

This is of course great news for the further development of the web. We are witnessing and participating in the first semantic application. But although zemanta, works on a semantic algorithm, it cannot take full advantage of it. The reason is, that the current systems haven’t

Image from Wikipedia

yet implemented semantic technologies.

For the take off of the semantic web, linked data and killer applications are required. With Zemanta, we have a killer application, which cannot show its potential.

Until this point of writing the current post, zemanta suggests 9 images:

• 2 of Tim Berners Lee
• 2 of the wordpress administration interface
• 1 screenshot of OpenOffice
• 1 screenshot of Chatzilla
• 1 Data set in the linking Open Data Project (image on the right)
• 2 screenshots of two blogs.

It seems to me, that these suggestions do not take full advantage of semantics, but rather function “web 2.0-style”, based on keywords.

Conclusion

I really like Zemanta. It integrates in the new wordpess 2.5 very well and it makes blogging significantly easier.

Unfortunately, it is quite far from being a semantic application; not because it doesn’t have the correct background, but because the rest of the web is not ready yet.

But my hope is, that if we use the application more it will help the development team to expand the service and the whole web experience.

Will paper survive the digital era?

It’s a discussion, that started couple of weeks ago with an article of Alex Iskold and really got me thinking.

I really enjoy the merits of technology and always welcome new innovations; but also like going back to print and reading a good book.

So maybe, I would never set books aside to read from any other digital form; but this is just me.

But if we see the subject in a more global level, could digitalization really overpower print? I think not, due to the very nature of these two media.

Print Media

Marshall McLuhan once noted

All the words in the world cannot describe an object like a bucket, although it is possible to tell in a few words how to make a bucket.

Words are inadequate to convey visual information. They leave everything to the imagination, as one of the great laws of bibliography signifies:

The more there were, the fewer there are.

Print allows us to mentally react to and reconstruct information, but this is not the property that will allow it to survive digitalization.

The greatest asset for its survival is, that it requires our full attention and doesn’t allow any abstractions.

Imagine being completely isolated, with just one book in your pocket. If you decide to “interact” with the book, your only option is to concentrate on the book and read it.

Digital Media

Now imagine being completely isolated, with just your laptop. You can watch film, read text, listen to music, connect with people and many more. The possibilities provided by a digital medium are countless.

The coexistence of overlapping windows is now a fundamental principle of the modern GUI and in fact a very common practice among users. Lack of concentration is bound to happen, when several services run simultaneously.

This coexistence of information in a digital medium can be compared with the phenomenon of zapping.

Under that perspective, I find it very hard to substitute paper with any digital medium.

If we disregard the tiresome effect of reading from a screen or the difficulty of editing (running your pen over the text to underline and keep notes), digital reading is still not our best choice. In digital media, the distractions are many and reading would require much more time.

Conclusion

I disagree here with Mark Dykeman, since I don’t see paper dying, even if we had

1. better screens,
2. easier to edit text and
3. free internet access everywhere.

A monitor has multimedia possibilities, paper doesn’t. Whenever we are dealing with a lengthy read or an important document, paper is necessary to keep us concentrated.

For me the only option of digital replacing print is when E-Paper replaces tree-paper. Although, we are far from it realization, such a technology could bring revolutionary results, only because it utilizes the advantages of the digital by keeping simplicity of paper.

I’m really interested to see, how you see this potential of the extinction of paper.

How often do you print out documents you want to read? If you observe the younger generations and the popularity of newspapers, books and magazines, could you imagine the near future without massive use of paper?

The Technology Review posted the other day an article on the “10 Emerging Technologies of 2008“. Very promising technologies indeed, but the one that really caught my attention was the Probabilistic Chips currently studied by Krishna Palem.

The reason I find this particular research so interesting is, that

• it has the potential of extending current scaling laws - and particularly Moore’s Law
• it takes advantage of the principles of collective intelligence and the wisdom of crowds.

The theory of Probabilistic Chips

According to the article

Palem has developed a way for chips to use significantly less power in exchange for a small loss of precision. [...] chips could be designed to produce the correct answer sometimes, but only come close the rest of the time. Because the errors would be small, so would their effects: in essence, Palem believes that in computing, close enough is often good enough.

Current Scaling Laws

From the beginning of the twentieth century until today, a series of laws has emerged concerning the growth of computers and networks. They all negotiate the value of a network according to the technological leverage of the time.

• Sarnoff’s law, which was interested in the growth of radio and television networks (the value of the network is proportional to the number of actors)
• Metcalfe’s Law describing the value and the growth of small scale networks (the “value” or “power” of a network increases in proportion to the square of the number of nodes on the network).
• Reed’s Law describing the value of Group Forming Networks (the value of networks, that support the construction of communicating groups create value that scales exponentially with network size).
• Moore’s law handling the evolution and expansion of computer microchips (the number of transistors on a chip will double about every two years).

One can notice the evolution from Sarnoff’s Law to Reed’s Law.

While Sarnoff’s Law was suggesting, that the value of a broadcast station (television or radio) would increase proportionally to its audience it could not be applied to more complex networks, since the degree of interconnectivity was much higher.

So Metcalfe’s Law was an evolutionary step of Sarnoff’s Law, which better described the upcoming computer networks (ARPANET) in the 1960s. But Metcalfe’s Law could be easily be applied to small computer or telephone networks, but certainly not to huge networks like the Internet.

Reed’s Law emerged to describe the masive development of the web and more specifically of the social web.

Moore’s Law, on the other hand remains stable. Although it finds application on the expansion of computer microchip technology for more than 40 years, its validity is lately at stake. The reason is, that silicon transistors are becoming smaller and smaller and therefore less reliable.

But that’s where the probabilistic chips come in play, to keep the microprocessor technology rapidly evolving.

With probabilistic chips, tiny microprocessors may be designed in such way, that the individual parts might be imperfect, but collectively bring perfect results.

Collective Intelligence

The probabilistic chip technology actually takes advantage of the theory of collective intelligence.

As supported by the Condorcet Jury Theorem [pdf], the probability of a correct answer by a majority of the group increases toward 100% as the size of the group increases. The validity of the Theorem is based on the hypothesis, that the answers provided by each individual are not random - but instead there is a more than 50% probability to be correct.

The Condorcet Jury Theorem might be criticized when we are dealing with humans, but machines can be programmed to work in such a manner.

It seems to me, that this is how cultural revolutions emerge: combining disciplines, which at first seem irrelevant to bring forth innovative ideas and technologies.

Probabilistic chips, can change the scenery of energy consumption, mobile technologies and microprocessor development; and all that by applying an almost 200 old theory to a completely different research field.

If you have been following the news lately, the web is undergoing a transformation. This transformation is a good thing; it simplifies the communication between man and machine, it breaks the rules of distance and introduces software which bring the cyberspace to unknown pathways. Surely, that is a good thing.
But there is a problem behind this transformation. It is not actually a transformation, it is “transformations”. Three different movements are striving to bring the web into its new phase and revolutionize it.

The semantic web

The semantic web has been online for quite some time now. We hear it, some even see it, but in the end it still isn’ t there. The semantic web will give the tools to the machines to understand and learn the semantic language of humans. It will be based on openness and it will bring software, which will work in a traditional emergent manner.
The semantic web (or web 3.0 or Giant Global Graph - GGG) is

about letting it be connected to data from peer sites. It is about letting it be joined to data from other applications.

The Data Portability project, OpenId and even google’s new social graph are certainly steps towards this direction.

Web of Data

Then we have the Web of Data. Something I first read about yesterday at Richard MacManus’ post. Richard writes about a speech Tom Coates gave, talking among other about the world of tomorrow. According to Coates’ vision the cyberspace will invade real life:

1. A physical object responds to or visualizes data from the network.
2. Interacting with a physical object allows people to change data stored in the network.
3. A physical object acts as a sensor that writes to the web of data.

This is surely an enlightening view of the future, a view we have probably only seen in science fiction movies. Still Tom Coates brings examples of software already succeeding in the field of web-real life interaction.

Revolutionary Software

Finally, Robert Scoble wrote yesterday about a new software currently under development in Microsoft, which will change the digital world. NetMeeting, Netscape and Photoshop were such software. Now Microsoft works on something similarly radical. We all have to wait unti the 27th of September for more information, but Scoble sounds fascinated already.

Decentralization of objectives

All these - and probably more projects that we’ve not heard of yet - are encouraging efforts to develop and evolve the web. I eagerly wait to see how things online will develop. But I also see a small problem here: decentralization.
I’ve already written, that I’m an advocate of decentralization. Many different agents working on a goal, without any central control. But here we are not seeing decentralization of work, but decentralization of goals.
Every institute is trying to change the web on its own way, without collaborating with others. I have the feeling they all have the same upper goal (revolutionizing the web), but different means to achieve it. Decentralization of objectives usually brings confound, disorientation and certainly failure.

Competition is always a parameter of evolution in any market. But if we see the development of the web’s next generation as a race, then we also agree on its commercialization.

Being supportive and being skeptical

Forgive me for being biased on this one, but I tend to trust more the vision of the semantic web for 3 reasons:

1. It is supported by the World Wide Web Consortium, an institution which constantly proves its belief in openness and innovation.
2. It is the only vision of the next Web, that we know so many about and therefore proves its openness.
3. It gives the tools for better commercial interactions, but it doesn’t make the web commercial.

Why I’m skeptical about the other innovations.

1. Tom Coates talks about the importance of openness of data (weblogs, RSS), but he directs his remarks to marketing: being open will drive people to your service, people will pay for it, make your service more attractive, etc.
2. Microsoft is a universal colossus based on providing software to the market and doing its best to keep them on top. I acknowledge Microsoft’s contribution to the web and digitalization in general, but I’m very skeptical on any software it provides. The United States vs. Microsoft case proves my skepticism.

I point out here, that the nature of the other visions (a presentation I didn’t attend to and a software not yet published) does not allow me to be subjective. My skepticism is based on prior experience and not on the current projects. So please any oppositions, feedback, additional information will be appreciated.

A post in the ReadWriteWeb a couple of days ago, guided me to a very interesting document. A summary of Project10X’s Semantic Wave 2008 Report (available here).
I just finished reading the report, which provides some very insightful information about web 3.0. The semantic web will transform the web from an information-centric to a knowledge-centric system, by developing 4 fundamental attributes:

1. Knowledge

The web is a fragmented place. Knowledge is scattered in all its corners, sometimes locked in operating systems and complex algorithms. The semantic web, will pursue to change this. It will facilitate technologies, which will extract knowledge and

will enable communities to create, curate, and share knowledge in human readable and machine executable forms.

2. Transparency

Information will evolve in knowledge, through its encoding in a semantic form, which will be transparent and accessible at any time to any machine. Knowledge was previously stored either in human readable or in machine readable form. In the semantic web, it will be stored transparently, so that users and machines will be able to read the same piece of data. In that way, it will be possible for data to be used, validated and combined with other data. This will allow

a system to “learn” to do things that the system designer did not anticipate.

3. Connectivity

To overcome the limitations and restrictions of OS platforms, the semantic web will encourage a real time usage of automated and semi-automated methods, of interaction between man and machine:

Web-tops; platforms spanning multiple OSs connected over the internet
Mash-ups; two or more data sources or works combined to become a new data source or work
Context-aware mobility; dynamic composition and personalization of services across devices, networks, locations, and user circumstances and
Semantic service oriented architectures; using machine-interpretable descriptions of policies and services o automate discovery, negotiation, adaptation, composition invocation, and monitoring of web services.

4. Technology

The key of the sematic web is the usage of technologies, which represent meanings and knowledge seperately from content, in order to be interpretable from humans and machines. Such representations will range from pattern recognition, analogy and reasoning with uncertains to deep linguistics and causality.

The integration of social Web and semantic technologies in Web 3.0 allows new synergy that lowers the cost of data and knowledge creation, and raises the computational value of gathering.

The semantic technologies, which will power Web 3.0 will concentrate on:

• Semantic user experience (how the user comprehends things)

• Semantic social computing (how users communicate and collaborate)

• Semantic applications and things (how products and behaviors can be seen empirically and objectively)

• Semantic infrastructure (interobjective network-centric systems and ecosystems)

• Semantic development (how meanings and systems can share what they know)

Epilogue

The report refers also to semantic technology markets and other interesting points. It explains the the information I shortly mentioned above very well and I definetely suggest you to read it.

The 4 attributes I listed above gave me the impression, that they are the key traits, which will revolutionize the online experience. Where, the emergent behavior of the whole system will bring user interaction in new levels. I believe, that the development of services such as data portability and openID are steps to this direction. But, to a certain degree, it is a personal preference.

I’m interested to see, which attributes of the semantic web do you find most revolutionary.

I had a post the other day about Facebook and one of its rivals “Kaioo” and the discussion came to the subject of data portability.
M@ri@nn@ expressed her skepticism on the project. This short video (found at Partcls.blog) sumarizes the concept of data portability very well. Enjoy.

Sorry, I had to remove the video because it really messed up with the look of the blog…

Get involved in data portability.

Trent Reznor gave an interview yesterday, where he states his thoughts on music in the digital age and his Saul Williams experiment. Here are some points he made, which I found very interesting. (A full version of the inteview can be found at news Blog.)

On his disappointment over the sales

I’m not disappointed with the numbers with Saul at all. I think, particularly looking at what he’s done historically and in the climate of today’s music scene, that’s something to be proud of….here’s the record in as great a quality as you could ever want, it’s available now and it’s offered for an insulting low price, which I consider $5 to be, I thought that it would appeal to more people than it did. That’s where my sense of disappointment is in general, that the idea was wrong in my head and for once I’ve given people too much credit.

On the future of music

• In my mind, I think if there was an ISP tax of some sort, we can say to the consumer, “All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up you’re a** if you want, and it’s $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill.

• If I could redo everything and start again, I think having a physical product is a good thing. I think that having some more coordination on our part–and I’ll take the blame on that because there was an urgency to get this done and get it out that I was the ringleader for–I think if we could wave a magic wand and do it again I think being able to offer an inexpensive version in addition to a premium physical product that could be shipped out afterward.

On the Radiohead Project

I’ll name check Radiohead on this–they’ve done a pretty suave marketing plan on this new record. I think generally it’s been a pretty cool thing, but what they’ve done is used those (sales) numbers in a way that they can spin them anyway they want cause you don’t know what they are.

Two points drew my attention at most:

• “…in my head and for once I’ve given people too much credit.” The sales percentage seems to agree with that point, but is it really so or is it just the public that Saul Williams adresses to?

• “All music is now available and able to be downloaded and put in your car and put in your iPod and put up you’re a** if you want, and it’s $5 on your cable bill or ISP bill.” So many questions emerge from this thought: Would you be willing to pay such a tax? How much would you be willing to pay? Would you think that such a tax, would be the beginning of an internet tax in general?

The tax issue

• On the one hand it seems unfair to tax the whole internet community for something (downloading music) that just a percentage of the users does.

It also seems hard to imagine all the participants (artists, industries, government) trying to share the income of this tax. How would be the percentage divided?

• On the other hand it could be just a tax on subscribed downloaders. Only users who download the music, would pay a certain amount. But it is something we have already witnessed (Napster, Rhapsody) and it doesn’t work. But Reznor also talks about the physical product. I would gladly pay 5$ tax or registration to get the original cd shipped to me, instead of just the digital version.

An interesting discussion on the subject goes on at Matthew Ingram’s post “Hey Trent - a music tax is a dumb idea“. I wouldn’t go that far, to say it’s a dump idea, but surely there are many-many parameters we should take account, in order for such a proposal to be successful and fair.

It would be dumb, if it were to start an avalanche of internet taxes in general (in youtube videos, online books, radio stations etc).