Message in a Bottle or: How can the Semantic Web Community be more convincing?
Description
Enormous resources are poured into projects like the Large Hadron Collider, the Hubble space telescope, or the Iter fusion reactor. Computer science resources pale in comparison – the European Semantic Web effort is tiny compared to those projects. Why is this the case? Does the Semantic Web (or computer science in general) promise less impact or relevance than those Physics projects? In my talk I will argue that the Physicists are much better in formulating an engaging mission and message. Especially the Semantic Web community has not been very good in coming up with a convincing mission directed to the public. We need to and we can do better. I will formulate requirements and a starting point for such a message and investigate ongoing seemingly unrelated research areas and trends on the Semantic Web like Semantic Sensor Networks, Social Semantic Desktop and Semantic Publishing and how they contributes to a better conveyable mission.
| Slides | |
| 0:00 | Message in a Bottle or How can the Semantic Web Community be more convincing |
| 4:42 | Monadic Second Order Logic |
| 5:01 | Logic |
| 5:35 | Monadic Second-Order Logic |
| 6:03 | MSO –graph expressivity (1) |
| 6:12 | MSO –graph expressivity (2) |
| 6:22 | MSO –decidability |
| 6:45 | Now... |
| 7:44 | The Large Hadron Collider |
| 9:12 | Next Generation: Linear Collider |
| 9:56 | Hubble Space Telescope |
| 10:39 | The ITER project |
| 11:47 | What can we learn |
| 13:57 | What about Artificial Intelligence |
| 14:29 | Artificial Intelligence |
| 15:41 | Reason |
| 16:10 | The AI Winter |
| 16:35 | Appealing and doable |
| 17:23 | Are we there yet? |
| 17:46 | What is the Semantic Web (1) |
| 18:18 | What is the Semantic Web (2) |
| 18:49 | What is the Semantic Web (3) |
| 19:04 | What is the Semantic Web (4) |
| 19:36 | Semantic Web so far |
| 21:16 | Can we do better? |
| 21:22 | History and Credibility |
| 21:50 | Cave Drawings 30000 BC |
| 22:00 | Writing: 3200 BC (Sumerian cuneiform) |
| 22:12 | Printing Press (Gutenberg 1450) |
| 22:17 | Photography (Daguerre 1839) |
| 22:20 | Telephone (Bell 1876) |
| 22:24 | Phonograph (Edison 1877) |
| 22:31 | Movies (Lumiere 1895) |
| 22:34 | Bush’s camera on the head |
| 23:10 | Memex |
| 23:37 | Sketch of memex |
| 23:56 | Video Conferencing (Bell Picturephone1956) |
| 24:01 | oNLine System-NLS, 1968(Doug Englebart, SRI) |
| 24:10 | ARPANET (1969) (John Postel, David Crocker, Vint Cerf) |
| 24:17 | EMAIL (Ray Tomlinson 1971) |
| 24:20 | Xanadu (Ted Nelson - 1960-???) |
| 24:23 | Graphical User Interface (1984) |
| 24:27 | World Wide Web (Tim Berners-Lee 1989) |
| 24:40 | Web-based Groupware (BSCW, 1994) |
| 24:49 | WikiWiki (Cunningham, 1995) |
| 24:55 | Instant Messaging (ICQ, 1995) |
| 25:00 | Web 2.0 and Online Social Networks (2002) |
| 25:16 | Where are we going? |
| 25:23 | Our lineage |
| 26:26 | It wasn’t the time then |
| 26:41 | Now we are making progress |
| 26:56 | A Network of Knowledge |
| 27:25 | Hypothesis |
| 28:00 | Healthcare |
| 28:31 | Science |
| 28:57 | Government |
| 29:23 | Business |
| 29:44 | Networked Knowledge |
| 30:43 | Semantic Interlinking of Online Community Sites (SIOC) |
| 31:49 | SIOC |
| 32:37 | The SIOC ontology |
| 33:39 | List of some SIOC implementations |
| 35:09 | Consuming SIOC |
| 36:14 | Adoption of SIOC |
| 36:33 | Good Relations |
| 36:42 | Networked Knowledge on the Desktop |
| 37:18 | Social Semantic Desktop - Realization |
| 38:04 | Desktop Ontologies: PIMO, NIE, ... |
| 38:51 | Semantic Web enablingNetworked Knowledge |
| 40:12 | - Questions |
Lecture rating
| People found this lecture: | ||
| Worth seeing | ||
| because it is: | ||
| Valuable and informative | ||
| Well presented | ||
| Easily understandable | ||
| Acceptably recorded | ||
| You need to login to cast your vote. | ||
Report a problem or upload files
If you have found a problem with this lecture or would like to send us extra material, articles, exercises, etc., please use our ticket system to describe your request and upload the data.Enter your e-mail into the 'Cc' field, and we will keep you updated with your request's status.
Related content
4 comments
SEE ALSO:
Download slides:
iswc08_decker_mib_01.pdf (7.5 MB)
Download slides:
iswc08_decker_mib_01.ppt (15.5 MB)
Launch in a standalone WM PlayerSwitch to Windows Media Player
View slides
Streaming Video Help
Windows Media Player Firefox Plugin - Download
Link this page
Would you like to put a link to this lecture on your homepage?Go ahead! Copy the HTML snippet !
Dear visitor,
the introduction of the talk needs an explanation to be understandable.
The intro was a response to Tim Finin's (the conference chair) announcement (at the conference dinner the night before) that I would be talking about 2nd Order Logic and would save the Semantic Web with 2nd Order Logic (his statement). I decided to use his announcement (with was done without my knowledge) and indeed start the with a couple of slides on 2nd Order Logic - to set a contra point to the rest of the talk.
Some people misunderstood the introduction as me demoting logic as a foundation for the Semantic Web. That was not my intention - I myself have a background in logic and some of my most cited papers are about logic and inference mechanisms for the Web.
Indeed 2nd Order Monadic Logic has interesting properties for describing graphs and it may be worthwhile to investigate the relationship to RDF graphs (I have not done this).
My talk was about how to communicate the Semantic Web ideas to a greater audience - and indeed logic may not be the most effective tool here.
But of course logic (also 2nd Order Logic) are worthwhile areas of research also for the Semantic Web.
I hope this comment clarifies some of the questions and remarks I got.
Best regards,
Stefan Decker
http://www.StefanDecker.org
I was wondering. Your note explains a lot.
Thanks
Barry