Re: Basics of Effective Learning

Ivan Herman wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer, Kingsley.
>
> Tom Gruber gave a keynote[1] at ISWC2006 on the theme of 'collective
> intelligence' which was quite interesting (the videos will, eventually,
> be published, the pointer on [2] did not really work for me...). Here is
> what I blogged on this[3]:
>
> [[I quite liked Tom Gruber’s keynote on “Social Web”. Tom tried to avoid
> the controversial Web 2.0 term and talked rather of the collective
> intelligence of folksonomies, tagging, blogging, etc. It was good to
> hear a talk that avoids the unnecessary controversy on the relationship
> between Web 2.0 and, say, the Semantic Web. Tom also talked about an
> attempt to give a more coherent ontological model for tagging, though it
> seems that this work is stalled due to missing people to work on it (see
> also an earlier blog[4] he had on this for some more details). Would be
> good to pick this up…]]
>
> Actually, the comment on Tim O'Reilly's blog that caught my eyes is the
> one of Steve Loughran. He says:
>
> "semantic web is built on ontologies and ubiquitous RDF"
>
> which, in this form, is incorrect and one of the 'myths' we do have
> around SW (maybe we should make it part of[5]), namely that any SW
> application must use ontologies, ie (according to this line of thought)
> has to use OWL, ie, is based on complex and difficult-to-understand
> concepts.
>
> He also adds a remark that:
>
> "Perhaps the rebranding of SemWeb work as Web3.0 is an attempt by the
> Semantic Web community to try and stay relevant, or it was just a witty
> title by the article author."
>
> I am not sure who came up with the Web3.0 term, but, in my opinion, I
> wonder whether we should use it at all. At first glance, my gut reaction
> is to stay away from this.
>   
In my experience I have found using terms understood an accepted by a 
given audience is the best way to expand their view of new and/or 
emerging domains of thought. Thus, if I encounter people who only 
understand the current focal point of the Web as Web 2.0 I try not to 
loose my goal of exposing complimentary dimensions of interaction and 
thought by invalidating the very frame of reference they currently 
possess. That, I would say, applies to Web 3.0, since it is the only way 
some people are able to conceive the emergence of another dimension of 
Web interaction that follows what is currently tagged "Web 2.0" :-)

Tim O'Reilly picked up the Web 2.0 moniker for the "Web of Services" by 
re-using an approach popularized by Esther Dyson [1] :-)

Links:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esther_Dyson

Kingsley
> Ivan
>
>
> [1] http://iswc2006.semanticweb.org/items/keynote_gruber.pdf
> [2] http://seminars.ijs.si/iswc2006/
> [3] http://www.ivan-herman.net/WebLog/WorkRelated/SemanticWeb/iswc06-3.html
> [4] http://tomgruber.org/writing/ontology-of-folksonomy.htm
> [5] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/MythBusting
>
> Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>   
>> All,
>>
>> One of the big themes in the Web 2.0 (courtesy of Tim O'Reilly) is the
>> notion of: Harnessing Collective Intelligence. Unfortunately, this goal
>> isn't always seen as congruent with the underlying infrastructure that
>> the Semantic Web accords (that one beats me completely, but its a view
>> that's out there [1]).
>>
>> Anyway, I stumbled across this gem about the "Basics of Effective
>> Learning" from a page [2] about the Cornell Note Taking Format that's
>> speaks volumes :-)
>>
>> Links:
>>
>> 1. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/11/web_30_maybe_wh.html (IMHO
>> - trying to have it both ways by stretching his own earlier definition
>> of Web 2.0)
>> 2. http://www.bucks.edu/~specpop/Cornl-ex.htm
>>
>>     
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Received on Sunday, 10 December 2006 17:01:00 UTC