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·JUNE2007More recently, many people have become excited about Web 2.0. Al￾though we abhor both the term and the use of version numbers, we see that the movement is rife with inter￾esting 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 participa￾tion. From the Semantic Web view￾point, however, the most interesting technical aspects are • Folksonomies (or “tagging”) pro￾vide an organic, community￾driven means of creating structure and classification vocabularies; they often succeed where tradi￾tional 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, microfor￾matted data is easy to transform into something like RDF or OWL for Semantic Web agents to process. W3C is working on new approach￾es, such as Gleaning Resource Descriptions from Dialects of Lan￾guages (GRDDL) and RDFa, to stan￾dardize the linking of structured data with instructions on how to transform or embed data into exist￾ing 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 lan￾guage to use for any particular appli￾cation. Not surprisingly, subsets and extensions of these languages have started to appear — most notably, ver￾sions of RDF(S) that borrow a small number of features from OWL (though remaining simpler than “OWL Lite”). Other developers have invested con￾siderable 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 con￾ferences, that new journals have sprung up relating to semantic technologies, and that much of the language design happened in academic labs and corpo￾rate research centers, some have under￾standably 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 devel￾opment 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 peo￾ple 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 rela￾tionships 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 lan￾guage. 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 compa￾ny 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 engi￾neer at Yahoo announced in Novem￾ber 2006 that the Yahoo Food site (http://food.yahoo.com) is being pow￾ered by OWL and RDF, as well as sev￾eral 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