Peering Editor: Charles Petrie. petrie @stanford. edu Embracing"web3.0” Ora Lassila. Nokia Research Center James Hendler. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute n an article published in The New York Times representation(KR), which is a subfield of artifi- this past November, reporter John Markoff stat- cial intelligence(Al)concerned with constructing ed that "commercial interest in Web 3.0-or and maintaining (potentially complex) models of the 'Semantic Web, for the idea of adding mean- the world that enable reasoning about themselves ing- is only now emerging. This characteriza- and their associated information. As such, we can tion caused great confusion with respect to the understand the Semantic Web through the lessons relationships between the Semantic Web and the learned from the Web's development and adoption, Web itself, as well as between the Semantic Web as well as (perhaps somewhat painfully) from the and some aspects of the so-called Web 2.0. Some deployment of Al technologies. wanted to reject the term" Web 3.0"as too On the Web, we've seen the emergence of some business-oriented; others felt that the vision in the completely new business models that do indeed article was only part of the larger Semantic Web work, despite initially seeming infeasible. These vision, and still others felt that, whatever it was include the models introduced or perfected by called, the Semantic Web's arrival in the Business Netscape (creating a community by giving stuff section of The New york Times reflected an impor- away), Amazon and eBay (marketplaces), and Yahoo! and Google(advertising-supported sites With the Resource Description Framework Sharing data (or content, as it's often called when (RDF)and Web Ontology Language(OWL)-the discussing the Web) has unexpected and serendip- languages that power the Semantic Web- becom- itous outcomes-once you make something avail ing standards and new technologies reaching able, you have no idea how some people will us maturity for embedding semantics in existing Web it. The long-tail phenomenon for example, pages and querying RDF knowledge stores, some- aggregate sales of low-selling items, such as spe- thing exciting is clearly happening in this area. cialized books, surpassing the total number of best- sellers sold -defies traditional thinking about Semantic Web Background business models, but it's important to the new Web- With more than 10 years work on the Semantic based economy. Web sites don't really exist in iso Web's foundations and more than five years since lation -linking is what makes search engines work the phrase became popular, it's an opportune and gives the"blogosphere"its power. moment to look at the field's current state and From the euphoria surrounding AI in the 1980s ture opportunities. From a humble beginning as through the hangover of the"AI winter"in the methodology for machine-interpretable meta- 1990s, we've learned what doesn't work: you cant data and through a "world-embracing"vision of a sell a stand-alone"Al application. These tech- new era of software (often -erroneously, in our nologies make sense only when embedded within opinion attributed as science fiction), the other systems Tools are hard to sell and often fail Semantic Web has matured into a set of standards to make good business sense (they certainly dont that support"open"data and a view of informa- make sense according to venture capitalists). Final- tion processing that emphasizes information rather ly, thinking of Al itself, we observe that reasoning than processing. engines are a means to an end, rather than the end From one viewpoint, the Semantic Web is the itself; how you use them is more important tha ymbiosis of Web technologies and knowledge the mere fact that you use them Published by the IEEE Computer Society 1089-7801/07/52500●2007EEE IEEEINTERNET COMPUTING
Peering 90 Published by the IEEE Computer Society 1089-7801/07/$25.00 © 2007 IEEE IEEE INTERNET COMPUTING Embracing “Web 3.0” I n an article published in The New York Times this past November, reporter John Markoff stated that “commercial interest in Web 3.0 — or the ‘Semantic Web,’ for the idea of adding meaning — is only now emerging.”1 This characterization caused great confusion with respect to the relationships between the Semantic Web and the Web itself, as well as between the Semantic Web and some aspects of the so-called Web 2.0. Some wanted to reject the term “Web 3.0” as too business-oriented; others felt that the vision in the article was only part of the larger Semantic Web vision, and still others felt that, whatever it was called, the Semantic Web’s arrival in the Business section of The New York Times reflected an important coming of age. With the Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL) — the languages that power the Semantic Web — becoming standards and new technologies reaching maturity for embedding semantics in existing Web pages and querying RDF knowledge stores, something exciting is clearly happening in this area. Semantic Web Background With more than 10 years’ work on the Semantic Web’s foundations and more than five years since the phrase became popular, it’s an opportune moment to look at the field’s current state and future opportunities. From a humble beginning as a methodology for machine-interpretable metadata and through a “world-embracing” vision of a new era of software (often — erroneously, in our opinion — attributed as science fiction), the Semantic Web has matured into a set of standards that support “open” data and a view of information processing that emphasizes information rather than processing. From one viewpoint, the Semantic Web is the symbiosis of Web technologies and knowledge representation (KR), which is a subfield of artificial intelligence (AI) concerned with constructing and maintaining (potentially complex) models of the world that enable reasoning about themselves and their associated information. As such, we can understand the Semantic Web through the lessons learned from the Web’s development and adoption, as well as (perhaps somewhat painfully) from the deployment of AI technologies. On the Web, we’ve seen the emergence of some completely new business models that do indeed work, despite initially seeming infeasible. These include the models introduced or perfected by Netscape (creating a community by giving stuff away), Amazon and eBay (marketplaces), and Yahoo! and Google (advertising-supported sites). Sharing data (or content, as it’s often called when discussing the Web) has unexpected and serendipitous outcomes — once you make something available, you have no idea how some people will use it. The long-tail phenomenon — for example, aggregate sales of low-selling items, such as specialized books, surpassing the total number of bestsellers sold — defies traditional thinking about business models, but it’s important to the new Webbased economy. Web sites don’t really exist in isolation — linking is what makes search engines work and gives the “blogosphere” its power. From the euphoria surrounding AI in the 1980s through the hangover of the “AI winter” in the 1990s, we’ve learned what doesn’t work: you can’t sell a stand-alone “AI application.” These technologies make sense only when embedded within other systems. Tools are hard to sell and often fail to make good business sense (they certainly don’t make sense according to venture capitalists). Finally, thinking of AI itself, we observe that reasoning engines are a means to an end, rather than the end itself; how you use them is more important than the mere fact that you use them. Ora Lassila • Nokia Research Center James Hendler • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Editor: Charles Petrie • petrie@stanford.edu
Embracing“web3.0 More recently, many people have siderable effort in revisiting and store data in a flexible schema so you can become excited about Web 2.0. Al- extending the functionality in the store additional types of information that though we abhor both the term and OWL standard, which is now emerging you might have been unaware of when you the use of version numbers we see as owl 1.1 riginally designed the schema. The second that the movement is rife with inter- Given that much of the current is that it helps you to create Web-like rela- esting phenomena. Web 2.0 is mostly work was presented at academic con- tionships between data, which is not easily a social revolution in the use of Web ferences, that new journals have sprung done in a typical relational database. technologies, a paradigm shift from up relating to semantic technologies, he Web as a publishing medium to a and that much of the language design As RDF acceptance has grown, the medium of interaction and participa- happened in academic labs and corpo- need has become clear for a standard tion. From the Semantic Web view- rate research centers, some have under- query language to be for RDF what point, however, the most interesting standably assumed that the Semantic SQL is for relational data. The SPARQL technical aspects are Web is primarily a research vision that's Protocol and RDF Query Language not yet ready for prime time. However, (SPARQL), now under standardization Folksonomies (or"tagging")pro- we're starting to see considerable devel- at the W3C, is designed to be that lan- vide an organic, community- opment within the applications space guage As Nova Spivack, CEO of Web drivenmeansofcreatingstructureandasthe"web3.0"articlerevealedstartupRadarnEtworks(www.radar and classification vocabularies tional mechanisms for defining Web 2.0 is mostly a social revolution in the ologies have failed or at least proven cumbersome. use of Web technologies, a paradigm shift markup to decode structured data from the Web as a publishing medium (with the underlying thinking that human-readable representation now comes free)-are a step toward this work is emerging in an important networks. com), put it in a February semantic data. Although not in and exciting way. 2007 blog, There is a huge amount of Semantic Web formats microfor- interest in SPARQL at the moment, and matted data is easy to transform Web 3.0 there are already a growing number of into something like RDF or OWL for Although Semantic Web proponents SPARQL endpoints popping ur ago.to around Semantic Web agents to process. have long seen evidence of growing the Web. These new SPARQL W3C is working on new approach- interest, the technologys success has are to data what Web sites were es, such as Gleaning Resource become far more evident in the past documents Descriptions from Dialects of Lan- few months. This is largely because of Numerous players of various sizes guages (GRDDL) and RDFa, to stan- the maturing of the rdF languages and are now focusing in different areas of dardize the linking of structured the technologies that support them. the Semantic Web space. UK-based datawithinstructionsonhowtoorAclesJuly2005releaseofrdFGarlik(www.garlik.com),forexample transform or embed data into exist- support in its Spatial 102g database uses Semantic Web technologies for ing Web resources. product provided the legitimacy that the"control of personal data in the some felt the language lacked. As peo- digital world. "Specifically, the compa- nce the 2004 completion ple experimented with RDF databases, ny is working to let users discover RDF and OWL standards, we've seen a they found significant advantages over what's known about them on the Web lot of experimentation (and confusion) traditional structured databases in to see what the aggregation of this regarding the right representation lan- many cases, especially with respect to information (exposed via an guage to use for any particular appli- embedding data on the Web. As store) reveals. Dave Beckett, an engi cation. Not surprisingly, subsets and Microsoft put it in its December 2006 neer at Yahoo announced in Novem extensions of these languages have Connected Services framework 3.0 ber 2006 that the Yahoo Food site started to appear- most notably, ver- Developer Guide: (http://food.yahoo.com)isbeingpow sions of rDF(S) that borrow a small ered by OWL and rDf, as well as sev number of features from OWL (though There are two main benefits offered by a eral other technologies. Teranode remainingsimplerthan"owlliTe").profilestorethathasbeencreatedbyusing(www.teranode.com),amongothersis Other developers have invested con- RDF. The first is that RDF enables you to exploring the use of Semantic Web MAY·JUNE2007
More recently, many people have become excited about Web 2.0. Although we abhor both the term and the use of version numbers, we see that the movement is rife with interesting phenomena. Web 2.0 is mostly a social revolution in the use of Web technologies, a paradigm shift from the Web as a publishing medium to a medium of interaction and participation. From the Semantic Web viewpoint, however, the most interesting technical aspects are • Folksonomies (or “tagging”) provide an organic, communitydriven means of creating structure and classification vocabularies; they often succeed where traditional mechanisms for defining ontologies have failed or at least proven cumbersome. • Microformats — the use of HTML markup to decode structured data (with the underlying thinking that human-readable representation now comes free) — are a step toward “semantic data.” Although not in Semantic Web formats, microformatted data is easy to transform into something like RDF or OWL for Semantic Web agents to process. W3C is working on new approaches, such as Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Languages (GRDDL) and RDFa, to standardize the linking of structured data with instructions on how to transform or embed data into existing Web resources. Since the 2004 completion of the RDF and OWL standards, we’ve seen a lot of experimentation (and confusion) regarding the right representation language to use for any particular application. Not surprisingly, subsets and extensions of these languages have started to appear — most notably, versions of RDF(S) that borrow a small number of features from OWL (though remaining simpler than “OWL Lite”). Other developers have invested considerable effort in revisiting and extending the functionality in the OWL standard, which is now emerging as OWL 1.1. Given that much of the current work was presented at academic conferences, that new journals have sprung up relating to semantic technologies, and that much of the language design happened in academic labs and corporate research centers, some have understandably assumed that the Semantic Web is primarily a research vision that’s not yet ready for prime time. However, we’re starting to see considerable development within the applications space and, as the “Web 3.0” article revealed, this work is emerging in an important and exciting way. Web 3.0 Although Semantic Web proponents have long seen evidence of growing interest, the technology’s success has become far more evident in the past few months. This is largely because of the maturing of the RDF languages and the technologies that support them. Oracle’s July 2005 release of RDF support in its Spatial 10.2g database product provided the legitimacy that some felt the language lacked. As people experimented with RDF databases, they found significant advantages over traditional structured databases in many cases, especially with respect to embedding data on the Web. As Microsoft put it in its December 2006 Connected Services Framework 3.0 Developer Guide: 2 There are two main benefits offered by a profile store that has been created by using RDF. The first is that RDF enables you to store data in a flexible schema so you can store additional types of information that you might have been unaware of when you originally designed the schema. The second is that it helps you to create Web-like relationships between data, which is not easily done in a typical relational database. As RDF acceptance has grown, the need has become clear for a standard query language to be for RDF what SQL is for relational data. The SPARQL Protocol and RDF Query Language (SPARQL),3 now under standardization at the W3C, is designed to be that language. As Nova Spivack, CEO of Web startup Radar Networks (www.radar networks.com), put it in a February 2007 blog, “There is a huge amount of interest in SPARQL at the moment, and there are already a growing number of SPARQL endpoints popping up around the Web. These new SPARQL endpoints are to data what Web sites were to documents.” Numerous players of various sizes are now focusing in different areas of the Semantic Web space. UK-based Garlik (www.garlik.com), for example, uses Semantic Web technologies for the “control of personal data in the digital world.” Specifically, the company is working to let users discover what’s known about them on the Web to see what the aggregation of this information (exposed via an RDF store) reveals. Dave Beckett, an engineer at Yahoo announced in November 2006 that the Yahoo Food site (http://food.yahoo.com) is being powered by OWL and RDF, as well as several other technologies. Teranode (www.teranode.com), among others, is exploring the use of Semantic Web MAY • JUNE 2007 91 Embracing “Web 3.0” Web 2.0 is mostly a social revolution in the use of Web technologies, a paradigm shift from the Web as a publishing medium
Peering Browser Http with SPARQL : Al application Http RdF often beyond your ownership or control triple(and potentially hostile), requires funda RDF HTML store mentally new approaches to ensuring engine nteroperability. No longer can we expect a priori standardization of ev Figure 1. Sample fractal"architecture of Semantic Web applications. Dynami air-wise interaction between all possi content engines, backed by rDf triple stores, act as both producers and ble systems we anticipate interacting consumers of"semantic"data. Data exchange can be facilitated using, for with; indeed, we can't even anticipate example, SPARQL all future scenarios Operating in such an open-ended world requires mechanisms for limiting technologies for scientific data integra- an RDF triple store: a component that the decision-making scope. For exam- tion, particularly in the biology sector. allows, among other things, the integra- ple, when seeking a particular kind of Joost(www.joost.com),thenewInter-tionofheterogeneousdatasourcesandnewservicetouseyoullwanttolimit net TV platform that made big news in repositories. SPARQL's emergence as the the set of candidates to something thats February in announcing a partnership standard query language for RDF lets contextually relevant(such as those with Viacom, uses RDF extensively. In data stores expose themsel that are offered in your current loca- fact, Joost announced recently that it SPARQL endpoints, thus enabling flex- tion). Similarly, traditional access-con will provide its open source RDF back- ible data exchange among systems. It is trol mechanisms might not scale to end technology to the Apache Founda- leading the way toward Web applica- situations in which we have an open- tion(www.apache.org),makingittionsthatexhibitakindof"fractal"endedsetofsystemsandusersweneed much more widely available for use by structure, with patterns in which one new decision-making mechanisms to Web developers. component uses another as a data enforce more flexible policies From the It's interesting to note how little of source(via SPARQL, for example)and representational viewpoint, Semantic this effort focuses on what was once acts as a data source to yet another Web technologies offer the possibility thought to be the Semantic Web's component (see Figure 1). Such archi- of implementing these kinds of techno major business sector: the integration tectures open up new possibilities for logical frameworks and platforms. We of enterprise data assets via ontologies. the original vision of Web services and claim that context-awareness and poli It isnt that such work isn't going on- loosely coupled distributed systems. cy-awareness are complementary rather Oracle, IBM, and several startups are Essentially, we can view Semantic than separate mechanisms - think of all providing important capabilities in Web technology as a novel approach to policies (and their enforcement )as a that area- but embedding RDF and interoperability: application developers particular kind of context. OWL on the Web, via the all-important can defer to the runtime accessible In the longer term, given that URI mechanism, is a key part of the semantics of a dialogue between two Semantic Web technologies are matur emerging excitement over Semantic information systems even after the sys- ing as a means of describing things, we Web technologies. Whereas the re- tems have been deployed By using rea- could use their representational power search community is widely exploiting soning mechanisms to access implied to describe things in the real world. One the al technologies that motivate, in information within conversations of view is that the physical objects will particular, the OWL DL sublanguage, the explicit statements, and by enabling become Web-accessible in that we will languages' more"Webby"features- systems to dynamically add capabilities be able to represent them via metadata sometimes referred to as the "dark by acquiring new ontologies and data to Just like applying semantic technolo side"of the Semantic Web+-are pow- reason over, the Semantic Web lets us gies to problems of interoperability in ering the Web 3.0 technology space. build future-proof systems that have a ubiquitous computing environments, chance of" doing the right thing"even describing physical things will expand Beyond Web 3.0 in unexpected situations. This approach our scope beyond the current Web. This How do we see the future of the Seman- is particularly ble to os is not unlike when some argue that Web tic Web and, most importantly, the and situations in which interoperability services merely exploit mechanisms and application of Semantic Web technolo- is critical - for example, the ubiquitous technologies developed for the Web, but gies for"mainstream"IT problems and computing vision of environments with really have nothing to do with it. systems? With Web 3.0, these technolo- pervasive embedded computation. To Semantic Web efforts provide an ap- gies are finding fertile ground in multi- connect, say, your handheld device to a proach to constructing flexible, intelli- tiered Web applications in which the dynamically changing set of dozens, if gent information systems; some are middle tier can be implemented using not hundreds, of other systems that are Web-based applications, but we're cer www.computer.org/internet/ IEEEINTERNET COMPUTING
92 www.computer.org/internet/ IEEE INTERNET COMPUTING Peering technologies for scientific data integration, particularly in the biology sector. Joost (www.joost.com), the new Internet TV platform that made big news in February in announcing a partnership with Viacom, uses RDF extensively. In fact, Joost announced recently that it will provide its open source RDF backend technology to the Apache Foundation (www.apache.org), making it much more widely available for use by Web developers. It’s interesting to note how little of this effort focuses on what was once thought to be the Semantic Web’s major business sector: the integration of enterprise data assets via ontologies. It isn’t that such work isn't going on — Oracle, IBM, and several startups are all providing important capabilities in that area — but embedding RDF and OWL on the Web, via the all-important URI mechanism, is a key part of the emerging excitement over Semantic Web technologies. Whereas the research community is widely exploiting the AI technologies that motivate, in particular, the OWL DL sublanguage, the languages’ more “Webby” features — sometimes referred to as the “dark side” of the Semantic Web4 — are powering the Web 3.0 technology space. Beyond Web 3.0 How do we see the future of the Semantic Web and, most importantly, the application of Semantic Web technologies for “mainstream” IT problems and systems? With Web 3.0, these technologies are finding fertile ground in multitiered Web applications in which the middle tier can be implemented using an RDF triple store: a component that allows, among other things, the integration of heterogeneous data sources and repositories. SPARQL’s emergence as the standard query language for RDF lets many data stores expose themselves as SPARQL endpoints, thus enabling flexible data exchange among systems. It is leading the way toward Web applications that exhibit a kind of “fractal” structure, with patterns in which one component uses another as a data source (via SPARQL, for example) and acts as a data source to yet another component (see Figure 1). Such architectures open up new possibilities for the original vision of Web services and loosely coupled distributed systems. Essentially, we can view Semantic Web technology as a novel approach to interoperability: application developers can defer to the runtime accessible semantics of a dialogue between two information systems even after the systems have been deployed. By using reasoning mechanisms to access implied information within conversations of explicit statements, and by enabling systems to dynamically add capabilities by acquiring new ontologies and data to reason over, the Semantic Web lets us build future-proof systems that have a chance of “doing the right thing” even in unexpected situations. This approach is particularly amenable to scenarios and situations in which interoperability is critical — for example, the ubiquitous computing vision of environments with pervasive embedded computation. To connect, say, your handheld device to a dynamically changing set of dozens, if not hundreds, of other systems that are often beyond your ownership or control (and potentially hostile), requires fundamentally new approaches to ensuring interoperability. No longer can we expect a priori standardization of every pair-wise interaction between all possible systems we anticipate interacting with; indeed, we can’t even anticipate all future scenarios. Operating in such an open-ended world requires mechanisms for limiting the decision-making scope. For example, when seeking a particular kind of new service to use, you’ll want to limit the set of candidates to something that’s contextually relevant (such as those that are offered in your current location). Similarly, traditional access-control mechanisms might not scale to situations in which we have an openended set of systems and users: we need new decision-making mechanisms to enforce more flexible policies. From the representational viewpoint, Semantic Web technologies offer the possibility of implementing these kinds of technological frameworks and platforms. We claim that context-awareness and policy-awareness are complementary rather than separate mechanisms — think of policies (and their enforcement) as a particular kind of context. In the longer term, given that Semantic Web technologies are maturing as a means of describing things, we could use their representational power to describe things in the real world. One view is that the physical objects will become Web-accessible in that we will be able to represent them via metadata. Just like applying semantic technologies to problems of interoperability in ubiquitous computing environments, describing physical things will expand our scope beyond the current Web. This is not unlike when some argue that Web services merely exploit mechanisms and technologies developed for the Web, but really have nothing to do with it. Semantic Web efforts provide an approach to constructing flexible, intelligent information systems; some are Web-based applications, but we’re cerFigure 1. Sample “fractal” architecture of Semantic Web applications. Dynamic content engines, backed by RDF triple stores, act as both producers and consumers of “semantic” data. Data exchange can be facilitated using, for example, SPARQL. RDF triple store HTTP HTTP with SPARQL HTML Browser RDF Dynamic content engine RDF triple store AI application Code and reasoner Ontology Address: > go @ Internet Zone Back Forward Stop Refresh Print Home Mail Dynamic content engine
Embracing“web3.0 tainly not limited to those. At the same "SPARQL Query Language for RDF, "W3C Lassila's work in the 1990s on machine- time, the application scope for Web orkingdraft26Mar.2007;www.w3.org/ interpretable metadata for Web resources technologies is expanding elsewhere. TR/rdf-sparql-queryl For example, W3C has started an initia- 4. J Hendler, " The Dark Side of the Semantic He is an elected member of the w3c advi- tive dubbed the Ubiquitous Web, ack Web. "IEEE Intelligent Systems, voL 22 soryBoardContacthimatwww.lassila.org. nowledging the benefits of expanding 1,2007,pp.2-4. the Web's reach beyond our desktop 5. T. Bemers-Lee, J Hendler, and 0. Lassila, "The James Hendler is the Tetherless World Chair at and laptop computers to other types of Semantic Web, "Scientific Am, May 2001 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where he devices and situations. The synergies directs the Future of Information project and between ubiquity and semantics are an Ora Lassila is a research fellow at the Nokia has appointments in the computer science exciting area in which we expect to see Research Center in Cambridge, Massachu and cognitive science departments. He also ignificant future work. setts, and is completing a PhD in computer es as the associate director of the web science from the Helsinki University of Technology. Previously, he's been a software MIT and is a member of the w3C's Semantic bout six years ago, we outlined a engineer, an entrepreneur, a venture capi Web Coordination Group. Hendler is editor in vision for the Semantic Web. 5 alist, and has done research in knowledge chief of IEEE Intelligent Systems and serves luding a view in which data des representation and its application to produc n the board of reviewing editors for Science. cribed in a machine-interpretable way tion scheduling and logistics planning Contact him at ww coupled with a means for defining vocabularies and ontologies, would lead to a revolution in new Web appli- cations. In one of the article's asides Advertising Personnel we reflected that we couldnt really Advertiser Product Index Marion Delaney! Media,Advertising Director predict what the Semantic Web's "killer May I June 2007 Phone:+14158634717|Emal pplication" would be. Rather, we claimed, "the abilities of the SemanticAdvertiser Page number Marian Anderson I Advertising Coordinator Web are too general to be thought Phone:+17148218380|Fax:+17148214010 about in terms of solving one key prob-Classified Advertising 15 Email: manderson@computer.org lem or creating one essential gizmo. It will have uses we haven't dreamed of Sandy Brown I IEEE Computer Society I Business Development Manager om en nterprise data integration to the "Boldface denotes advertisements in this issue Phone:+17148218380|Fax+17148214010 coming generation of Web Tv, the cur- Email: sb.ieeemedia @ieee. org rent variety of Semantic-Web-powere applications make it clear that this was Adve Will Hamilton an understatement Phone:+12693812156 Fa:+12693812556 Mid Atlantic (product/recruitment) Email. wh.ieeemeda@ieee. ong Semantic Web are yet to be explored, phone: +1 732 27720760 xC+14153984156 and much research remains to be done, Email: dbieeemediaoieee org Fax+14402482594 Emailpeterd@pscottassoc.com Email: jd jeeemedia@ieee.org this technology is clearly transitioning gland(product) into a serious player in the modern Web universe. We might not like the 9782440103 Fa:+17709934423 Email: mr seemed a @ieee. org term"Web 3. 0." but we enthusiastical ma: je. ieeemedia @ieee.org Emailtlynntom@mindspring.com ly embrace the technologies it is bring recruitment) ing to the field Phone:+13108364064 Fa+12124197589 Email: j-restchacki@ieee.org Email: ho andwth@yahoo. cor Email: tmieeemeda@ieee. org Connecticut(product Midwest/Southwest(recruitment) Japan l.J. Markoff, "Entrepeneurs See a Web 498-4520 one:+13108364064 by Commonsense, The New York C+1847498-591 Fax+13108364067 Business, 12 Nov. 2006. Email: greenco@optonlinenet Email: dg. ieeemedia@ieee. org Email: tm.ieeemeda@ieee. org 2. Connected Services Framework 3.0 Develop- Europe (product) ers Guide, Microsoft, http://msdn2 hone:+17084425633 Phone:+441875825700 Fax+441875825701 microsoft. com/en-us/library/aa 303446 aspx. Emal: djieeemedia @ieee. org +184749859 Email- Emailimpress@impressmedia.com 3. E. Prudhomme MAY·JUNE2007 93
tainly not limited to those. At the same time, the application scope for Web technologies is expanding elsewhere. For example, W3C has started an initiative dubbed the Ubiquitous Web, acknowledging the benefits of expanding the Web’s reach beyond our desktop and laptop computers to other types of devices and situations. The synergies between ubiquity and semantics are an exciting area in which we expect to see significant future work. About six years ago, we outlined a vision for the Semantic Web,5 including a view in which data described in a machine-interpretable way, coupled with a means for defining vocabularies and ontologies, would lead to a revolution in new Web applications. In one of the article’s asides, we reflected that we couldn’t really predict what the Semantic Web’s “killer application” would be. Rather, we claimed, “the abilities of the Semantic Web are too general to be thought about in terms of solving one key problem or creating one essential gizmo. It will have uses we haven’t dreamed of.” From enterprise data integration to the coming generation of Web TV, the current variety of Semantic-Web-powered applications make it clear that this was an understatement. Although many aspects of the Semantic Web are yet to be explored, and much research remains to be done, this technology is clearly transitioning into a serious player in the modern Web universe. We might not like the term “Web 3.0,” but we enthusiastically embrace the technologies it is bringing to the field. References 1. J. Markoff, “Entrepeneurs See a Web Guided by Commonsense,” The New York Times, Business, 12 Nov. 2006. 2. Connected Services Framework 3.0 Developers Guide, Microsoft, 2006; http://msdn2. microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa303446.aspx. 3. E. Prud’hommeaux and A. Seaborne, “SPARQL Query Language for RDF,” W3C working draft, 26 Mar. 2007; www.w3.org/ TR/rdf-sparql-query/. 4. J. Hendler, “The Dark Side of the Semantic Web,” IEEE Intelligent Systems, vol. 22, no. 1, 2007, pp. 2–4. 5. T. Berners-Lee, J. Hendler, and O. Lassila, “The Semantic Web,” Scientific Am., May 2001. Ora Lassila is a research fellow at the Nokia Research Center in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and is completing a PhD in computer science from the Helsinki University of Technology. Previously, he’s been a software engineer, an entrepreneur, a venture capitalist, and has done research in knowledge representation and its application to production scheduling and logistics planning. Lassila's work in the 1990s on machineinterpretable metadata for Web resources contributed to the Semantic Web’s launch. He is an elected member of the W3C Advisory Board. Contact him at www.lassila.org. James Hendler is the Tetherless World Chair at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, where he directs the Future of Information project and has appointments in the computer science and cognitive science departments. He also serves as the associate director of the Web Science Research Initiative, headquartered at MIT, and is a member of the W3C’s Semantic Web Coordination Group. Hendler is editor in chief of IEEE Intelligent Systems and serves on the board of reviewing editors for Science. Contact him at www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler. MAY • JUNE 2007 93 Embracing “Web 3.0” Advertising Sales Representatives Mid Atlantic (product/recruitment) Dawn Becker Phone: +1 732 772 0160 Fax: +1 732 772 0164 Email: db.ieeemedia@ieee.org New England (product) Jody Estabrook Phone: +1 978 244 0192 Fax: +1 978 244 0103 Email: je.ieeemedia@ieee.org New England (recruitment) John Restchack Phone: +1 212 419 7578 Fax: +1 212 419 7589 Email: j.restchack@ieee.org Connecticut (product) Stan Greenfield Phone: +1 203 938 2418 Fax: +1 203 938 3211 Email: greenco@optonline.net Midwest (product) Dave Jones Phone: +1 708 442 5633 Fax: +1 708 442 7620 Email: dj.ieeemedia@ieee.org Will Hamilton Phone: +1 269 381 2156 Fax: +1 269 381 2556 Email: wh.ieeemedia@ieee.org Joe DiNardo Phone: +1 440 248 2456 Fax: +1 440 248 2594 Email: jd.ieeemedia@ieee.org Southeast (recruitment) Thomas M. Flynn Phone: +1 770 645 2944 Fax: +1 770 993 4423 Email: flynntom@mindspring.com Southeast (product) Bill Holland Phone: +1 770 435 6549 Fax: +1 770 435 0243 Email: hollandwfh@yahoo.com Midwest/Southwest (recruitment) Darcy Giovingo Phone: +1 847 498-4520 Fax: +1 847 498-5911 Email: dg.ieeemedia@ieee.org Southwest (product) Steve Loerch Phone: +1 847 498 4520 Fax: +1 847 498 5911 Email: steve@didierandbroderick.com Northwest (product) Peter D. Scott Phone: +1 415 421-7950 Fax: +1 415 398-4156 Email: peterd@pscottassoc.com Southern CA (product) Marshall Rubin Phone: +1 818 888 2407 Fax: +1 818 888 4907 Email: mr.ieeemedia@ieee.org Northwest/Southern CA (recruitment) Tim Matteson Phone: +1 310 836 4064 Fax: +1 310 836 4067 Email: tm.ieeemedia@ieee.org Japan Tim Matteson Phone: +1 310 836 4064 Fax: +1 310 836 4067 Email: tm.ieeemedia@ieee.org Europe (product) Hilary Turnbull Phone: +44 1875 825700 Fax: +44 1875 825701 Email: impress@impressmedia.com Advertiser | Product Index May | June 2007 Advertiser Page number Classified Advertising 15 *Boldface denotes advertisements in this issue Advertising Personnel Marion Delaney | IEEE Media, Advertising Director Phone: +1 415 863 4717 | Email: md.ieeemedia@ieee.org Marian Anderson | Advertising Coordinator Phone: +1 714 821 8380 | Fax: +1 714 821 4010 Email: manderson@computer.org Sandy Brown | IEEE Computer Society | Business Development Manager Phone: +1 714 821 8380 | Fax: +1 714 821 4010 Email: sb.ieeemedia@ieee.org
