The Semantic Web

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/

There's talks of the prospect of another Web standard; it's the 3rd version and is dubbed 'The Semantic Web'. The name refers to the method of information gathering which is used to personalize content towards a user; advertisements, search results, and so forth. To really understand the semantic web - what it is and its implications - one must first understand its history, or rather, the versions of the web preceding it. It should also be noted that there is no clearly defined point at which the web changes versions; the Web is constantly evolving, we're just ascribing characteristics to an era.

The 'Web 1.0' is known as the 'Static Web'; it's centred around a top-down approach wherein web-pages are put up by the maintainer of the website, and there is no external input. A pro of this system is that content is put up by a single person or team, and its authenticity can be affiliated with that website. The cons mostly pertain to the lack of input; there are no external comments, and so no reviews of the information's authenticity by third-parties; links and other content must be shared via email, or some other kind of peer-to-peer communication.

The 'Web 2.0' could be seen as a more 'Social Web'; it deals with people's propensity towards social interactions; it provides a means to review others' content, for collaborative efforts, and general discussions. It focuses on a more bottom-up approach where people can comment on, or moreover, interact with web pages. This lets the static nature of 'Web 1.0' evolve into something more dynamic. The major pro is that users can voice their opinions; this has many implications, foremost is that the quality of something can be assessed by a third-party. It would also prove useful in sharing content and ideas. The major con of user-submitted content is that it's not necessarily credible, and anyone with an opinion can voice it, regardless of its integrity.

The term 'Web 2.0' was coined in 1999, and popularized in 2004, but there are examples of Web 2.0 concepts being used before the term was coined; Amazon, for example, has allowed user reviews of its products since its launch in 1995. This goes to assert the fluidity of the evolution of the Web.

Finally, we get to the main point - the 'Web 3.0'. It's a prospective version, and there's some debate over what it'll be, but the most common implementation is referred to as the 'Semantic Web'. Its gist is evident by the keyword 'semantic' which pertains to the meaning of things. So a search engine in the Web 3.0 era would gather and store information and relate results to a search profile; it would be able to extrapolate on a query.

This might mean that a Web 3.0 era search engine would take into account a personality profile on its users; when searching for 'Egypt', a journalist might find news on protests, whereas a backpacker might find travel deals. This would mean that results would relate more to the user, and they would likely find what they're looking for more quickly. This does help streamline searching, but the wool would be pulled over one's eyes; one traps themselves in a 'bubble'. Another implication is having a mismatched profile when using another's computer.

As before, there are websites which already implement Web 3.0 concepts before the era; Google, for example, takes search profiles and location data into account with its search results.

There are also implications on privacy; verbose data profiles would be stored on every individual, psychologically profiling and catagorising them. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google is quoted as saying "We Know Where You Are. We Know Where You've Been. We Can More Or Less Know What You're Thinking About.". I disagree with tracking, particularly of this calibre; I find it unnecessary - Google claims their tracking significantly helps their search results, but anonymous alternatives such as DuckDuckGo often provide similar capabilities.

There's also philosophical implications to consider - if sensors pervade into every faucet of one's life, would the data gathered be a true representation of that person? Can a person really be defined as a collection of data? What are the limits of personality profiling? Can enough data be gathered on a person such that their personality and preferences can be deducted, essentially making that person completely predictable? There's even a question pertaining to qualia as to where the line of sentience is drawn: if a machine has the capability of collecting sensory input and utilizing it autonomously, isn't that not the (or a) definition of sentience?