4 ms·

Web 3.0 Demo

25 points by getp 19y ago

lbolognini 19y ago
Do i have to be the first to say smart tags?
- breily 19y ago
  The problem with using it for that is it doesn't seem to mark which 'entities' are more important than others. So even though it seems to be able to mark proper nouns and numbers, it doesn't differentiate between an 'entity' being the subject of an article and just being mentioned. There's probably ways to get around this(frequency counts of an entity in an article? number of google results for an entity?), but right now it doesn't seem to do that.
jasonlbaptiste 19y ago
interesting. it show entities, but does it show relationships? I kind of see that in actions, but it reminds me a lot of grammar class. That's not bad though, as the semantic web is going to have a lot of those fundamentals. Very cool stuff overall.
axod 19y ago
This reminds me very much of the irritating adverts that highlight specific words it knows about and pops up adverts related to them :/ Completely unconvinced...
- staticshock 19y ago
  the double underline ads? Opera lets you fix that problem with a user script: window.opera.addEventListener('BeforeExternalScript', function(e) { if(matchBlackList(e.element.getAttribute('src'))) e.preventDefault(); },false);
jarnold 19y ago
I can't wait until the Web 4.0 demo
- angstrom 19y ago
  From what I hear it requires developers to make use of the Internet's inherent design to support multiple planets. You think I'm joking about that last part? http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/1700 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/1700
iamdave 19y ago
How exactly is this Web 3.0? I never even really made sense of how you could call Web 2.0 "Web 2.0" when a) almost everyone who develops web 2.0 rich applications only create banners with gigantic, multicolored texts (eg. tutorials "How to make a fancy Web2.0 Logo) and b)This site uses the same technologies as web2.0 in the same ways as I've seen in other places. We need to stop playing this game of semantics, and stop being so anxious to evolve without the real need to.
- aagha 19y ago
  This is a great point--at what point specifically did things go from 1.0 to 2.0? Were there no 2.0 betas? I think a lot of this might be driven by marketers/advertisers trying to sell their clients on "a new way" of selling their content. Remember when some company (Was it Slate.com?) came out with the full-page interstitial ad? That was a new way of advertising content--wouldn't you say that would have earned atleast a Web 1.1 rating? "Web 2.0" _seems_ to be driven by sites being "interactive", I guess above and beyond just clicking around using 1.0(?) navigation. Furthermore, elements like mob behavior (Digg), social networking, RIA expereinces seem to let someone slap 2.0 on their site--not that it's wrong, but that seems to be the criteria. What else might I be missing in that list? What would you call Hacker News? Just because it's born in the Web 2.0 "era", does it make it so?
  - breily 19y ago
    I've always thought that 'Web 2.0' at first just meant that a site had user-generated/submitted content - so by that definition news.yc would be web 2.0 because pg does not post the stories and decide what we see.
- fiaz 19y ago
  You are right. The web is fluid and always evolving. Changing the version tag with such definiteness is the same as declaring a pile a heap...at what point does the transition take place? "Web 2.0" is a great marketing phrase to help bring back the importance of the internet. There were no doubt a number of different ways in which the web was used, but this is not a total rehash of the web into a brand-spanking-new thing. If anything, we need to add a new protocol to have a different web, much less the semantic web - if this vision is to be a reality. HTTP is great but in order to take advantage of the semantic web we need a protocol to address those issues and not a protocol that is decades old and designed for a fairly constrained exchange of information.
tlrobinson 19y ago
Oh is Web 3.0 in beta already? Where can I sign up?
- aagha 19y ago
  Before you can sign up, you have to download the latest version of the Internet.
  - mcxx 19y ago
    Which version? 384 654 112 DVDs (with porn) or 3 DVDs (without porn)?
henning 19y ago
Gmail lets me email nicely. Flickr lets me organize and share photos easily. reddit and news.yc give me news. What does this let me do?
andreyf 19y ago
So Web 3.0 = Ajax + Natural Language Processing? heh, cute, but no.
- Spyckie 19y ago
  My thoughts exactly.
aswanson 19y ago
Is there any open source semantic analysis stuff out there?
Prrometheus 19y ago
English syntax and grammar is efficient at communicating ideas without throwing a bunch of highlighting and fancy colors and lines into the mix.
Spyckie 19y ago
If entities were ever to become something big in the web, it isn't going to be by generating random links between entities and hoping that something useful comes out of it. If anything, someone has to see a useful link between 2 entities and build an application around it. I doubt it will ever happen the other way around.
cardmagic 19y ago
Calling something Web 3.0 does not make it so.
ardit33 19y ago
Honestly, the web is confusing enough as it is. Something like this will scare people like my parents.
- Hexstream 19y ago
  Heck, it already scares me. Wait, make that "confuses". Well, in fact I'm just not getting the point.
symptic 19y ago
I think people simply have a habit of categorizing things to make them easier to understand and easier to remember. We associate many things with eras, generations, periods, dynasties, etc. The web is always evolving; it's just easier to consider a particular time frame 'Web 1.0' and the next 'Web 2.0'. From my viewpoint, it seems as if each 'Web x.0' will/would occur after each recessionary cycle. Then again, why try to make sense of something like this that is still so new?

Web 3.0 Demo

25 points by getp 19y ago

lbolognini 19y ago

Do i have to be the first to say smart tags?

breily 19y ago
The problem with using it for that is it doesn't seem to mark which 'entities' are more important than others. So even though it seems to be able to mark proper nouns and numbers, it doesn't differentiate between an 'entity' being the subject of an article and just being mentioned. There's probably ways to get around this(frequency counts of an entity in an article? number of google results for an entity?), but right now it doesn't seem to do that.

jasonlbaptiste 19y ago

interesting. it show entities, but does it show relationships? I kind of see that in actions, but it reminds me a lot of grammar class. That's not bad though, as the semantic web is going to have a lot of those fundamentals. Very cool stuff overall.

axod 19y ago

This reminds me very much of the irritating adverts that highlight specific words it knows about and pops up adverts related to them :/ Completely unconvinced...

staticshock 19y ago
the double underline ads? Opera lets you fix that problem with a user script: window.opera.addEventListener('BeforeExternalScript', function(e) { if(matchBlackList(e.element.getAttribute('src'))) e.preventDefault(); },false);

jarnold 19y ago

I can't wait until the Web 4.0 demo

angstrom 19y ago
From what I hear it requires developers to make use of the Internet's inherent design to support multiple planets. You think I'm joking about that last part? http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/1700 http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/print/1700

iamdave 19y ago

How exactly is this Web 3.0? I never even really made sense of how you could call Web 2.0 "Web 2.0" when a) almost everyone who develops web 2.0 rich applications only create banners with gigantic, multicolored texts (eg. tutorials "How to make a fancy Web2.0 Logo) and b)This site uses the same technologies as web2.0 in the same ways as I've seen in other places. We need to stop playing this game of semantics, and stop being so anxious to evolve without the real need to.

aagha 19y ago
This is a great point--at what point specifically did things go from 1.0 to 2.0? Were there no 2.0 betas? I think a lot of this might be driven by marketers/advertisers trying to sell their clients on "a new way" of selling their content. Remember when some company (Was it Slate.com?) came out with the full-page interstitial ad? That was a new way of advertising content--wouldn't you say that would have earned atleast a Web 1.1 rating? "Web 2.0" _seems_ to be driven by sites being "interactive", I guess above and beyond just clicking around using 1.0(?) navigation. Furthermore, elements like mob behavior (Digg), social networking, RIA expereinces seem to let someone slap 2.0 on their site--not that it's wrong, but that seems to be the criteria. What else might I be missing in that list? What would you call Hacker News? Just because it's born in the Web 2.0 "era", does it make it so?
- breily 19y ago
  I've always thought that 'Web 2.0' at first just meant that a site had user-generated/submitted content - so by that definition news.yc would be web 2.0 because pg does not post the stories and decide what we see.
fiaz 19y ago
You are right. The web is fluid and always evolving. Changing the version tag with such definiteness is the same as declaring a pile a heap...at what point does the transition take place? "Web 2.0" is a great marketing phrase to help bring back the importance of the internet. There were no doubt a number of different ways in which the web was used, but this is not a total rehash of the web into a brand-spanking-new thing. If anything, we need to add a new protocol to have a different web, much less the semantic web - if this vision is to be a reality. HTTP is great but in order to take advantage of the semantic web we need a protocol to address those issues and not a protocol that is decades old and designed for a fairly constrained exchange of information.

tlrobinson 19y ago

Oh is Web 3.0 in beta already? Where can I sign up?

aagha 19y ago
Before you can sign up, you have to download the latest version of the Internet.
- mcxx 19y ago
  Which version? 384 654 112 DVDs (with porn) or 3 DVDs (without porn)?

henning 19y ago

Gmail lets me email nicely. Flickr lets me organize and share photos easily. reddit and news.yc give me news. What does this let me do?

andreyf 19y ago

So Web 3.0 = Ajax + Natural Language Processing? heh, cute, but no.

Spyckie 19y ago
My thoughts exactly.

aswanson 19y ago

Is there any open source semantic analysis stuff out there?

Prrometheus 19y ago

English syntax and grammar is efficient at communicating ideas without throwing a bunch of highlighting and fancy colors and lines into the mix.

Spyckie 19y ago

If entities were ever to become something big in the web, it isn't going to be by generating random links between entities and hoping that something useful comes out of it. If anything, someone has to see a useful link between 2 entities and build an application around it. I doubt it will ever happen the other way around.

cardmagic 19y ago

Calling something Web 3.0 does not make it so.

ardit33 19y ago

Honestly, the web is confusing enough as it is. Something like this will scare people like my parents.

Hexstream 19y ago
Heck, it already scares me. Wait, make that "confuses". Well, in fact I'm just not getting the point.

symptic 19y ago

I think people simply have a habit of categorizing things to make them easier to understand and easier to remember. We associate many things with eras, generations, periods, dynasties, etc. The web is always evolving; it's just easier to consider a particular time frame 'Web 1.0' and the next 'Web 2.0'. From my viewpoint, it seems as if each 'Web x.0' will/would occur after each recessionary cycle. Then again, why try to make sense of something like this that is still so new?