“Semantic Web”? Wha… ?
Special thanks to Bevan Whitfield for Tweeting the CNN story about this today. It’s a good story but I thought I should sum it up a bit here. The whole concept of the “Semantic Web” is dizzying, high-brow nerdcore that few grasp.
Question: Should you? I mean, does it really “matter”. (Note: we’re defining the threshold of something mattering here as being a thing you actually have to move on before you get left behind.)
Answer: Yeah, unfortunately, you have to learn this pretty much right now. Two reasons:
- It’s going to be the big buzzword of 2009. Or buzzterm. Whatever. You’ll be expected to participate in many a banal Web 3.0 related conversation about it. Sorry.
- It’ll actually start mattering for real in 2010, and wouldn’t it be nice if you’d already kind of picked up on the details by then?
So with no further adieu, I give you Intro to the Semantic Web courtesy of msporny, or as I like to call it: “Semantic Web for Noobs“.
Want to see some examples?
- Firefox Operator Add-on
- microformats.org/about
- rdfa.info/about
- Or if you just want a quick overview of what this RDFa stuff is, check out this other video by the same guy entitled RDFa Basics, or How To Procrastinate At Work By Learning RDFa:
There. Now you’re all set, you can keep your nerdcore cred, and nobody can look down their pocket protectors at you condescendingly at the next meetup when you mistakenly refer to all this as “glorified tagging”.
(Note: if you still call them “parties” or “meetings” instead of “meetups”, roll to save against “Unhipness” or loose 8 Nerdcore Points (NP).)
I found your article on the Semantic Web very interesting and useful. But, I have to ask you to please stop using this term “Web 3.0.” Please, don’t even use Web 2.0. And please, tell your friends and business partners not to use these terms. There is no such thing. It only exists as a buzz word and defines nothing but vagueness and mythical value. Everyone is selling “Web 2.0″ and now “Web 3.0″ snake oil to upper management types who are clueless about to just about everything except their need to look hip and on top of technology. I do not want to have to explain why WE don’t have the “Web 3.0″ or what version of our web sites are. Largely because they won’t believe me. After all, I’m just an employee. So, please, refuse to use that term. This isn’t AOL your selling here.
Hi Tuna,
Thanks for the feedback! I feel your pain regarding “Web X.doh” terminology, I really do. It’s a confuser, not a clarifier.
HOWEVER…
Face it: we’re stuck with it. People would rather feel like they understand things than feel like they don’t, and the comfort of putting version numbers on something they think they “get” (the web in this case) is just too tempting.
Also, people will repeat buzz terms over actual explanations any day. It’s more satisfying to tell people nothing and make them feel like they’ve learned something than to tell them how things really are and risk them feeling overwhelmed. The first earns friends and fans, the second earns blank stares. Sad but true.
This phenomena isn’t just sold by people speaking to management types who know nothing: even the community’s intelligencia are often guilty of using terms that gloss over the details. Nerds need love too.
There’s also payoff for them on another level: this way they can catch a reporter on an off day when they’re too busy to think things through. (We call those days “weekdays”.) Headlines = Academic Street Cred. For folks who’ve gone through the horrible PhD procurement procedure, Street Cred is mana from Heaven.
Regards,
Caleb