"Why the Semantic Web will Never Work" (note the quotes)

“Why the Semantic Web will Never Work”(note the quote marks!) Jim Hendler RPI http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler @jahendler (sorry, not in rhyme)

Friends, Romans (& Greeks), CountrymenLend me your ears I have come to bury the semantic web, not to praise it

Does it mean Why our critics were wrong when they said “The Semantic Web will Never Work” or Why the Semantic Web will Never Achieve the Vision we had for it (at least if we don’t fix things)

Yes (not Xor) Outline Some current Semantic Web Successes Revisit the Semantic Web vision What did we say we would do Review successes and failures What has worked as well (or better) than we expected What hasn’t What are some challenges to overcome to achieve the latter?

History >200 Semantic Web talks since 2000

Pre-HistoryWho first conceived of the Semantic Web?Tim Berners-Lee (WWW Geneva, 1994) "This is a pity, as in fact documents on the web describe real objects and imaginary concepts, and give particular relationships between them... For example, a document might describe a person. The title document to a house describes a house and also the ownership relation with a person. ... This means that machines, as well as people operating on the web of information, can do real things. For example, a program could search for a house and negotiate transfer of ownership of the house to a new owner. The land registry guarantees that the title actually represents reality.” Tim Berners-Lee plenary presentation at WWW Geneva, 1994

Beyond XML:Agent Semantics Prehistory: 1st funding talk Oct. 1999 DARPA will lead the way with the development of Agent markup Language (DAML) a “semantic” language that ties the information on a page to machine readable semantics (ontology) Currently being explored at University level SHOE (Maryland), Ontobroker(Karlsruhe),OWL(Washington Univ) Largely grows from past DARPA programs (I3, ARPI) But not transitioning W3C focused on short-term gain:HTML/XML <ONTOLOGY ID=”powerpoint-ontology" VERSION="1.0" DESCRIPTION=”formal model for powerpoint presentations"> <DEF-CATEGORY NAME=”Title" ISA=”Pres-Feature" > <DEF-CATEGORY NAME=”Subtitle" ISA=”Pres-Feature" > <DEF-RELATION NAME=”title-of" SHORT="was written by"> <DEF-ARG POS=1 TYPE=”presentation"> <DEF-ARG POS=2 TYPE=”presenter" > <Title> Beyond XML <subtitle> agent semantics </subtitle> </title> <USE-ONTOLOGY ID=”PPT-ontology" VERSION="1.0" PREFIX=”PP" URL= "http://iwp.darpa.mil/ppt..html"> <CATEGORY NAME=”pp.presentation” FOR="http://iwp.darpa.mil/jhendler/agents.html"> <RELATION-VALUE POS1 = “Agents” POS2 = “/jhendler”>

Berners-Lee et al, 2001 (May 21, 2001)

uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses uses This leads to a radically new view of interoperation Distributed,partially mapped, inconsistent -- but very flexible!

DAMLNotional Schedule Now Later 2001: We will change the world!

Web “travel agents” How many cows are there in Texas? Query processed: 73 answers found Google document search finds 235,312 possible page hits. Http://www…/CowTexas.html claims the answer is 289,921,836 A database entitled “Texas Cattle Association” can be queried for the answer, but you will need “authorization as a state employee.” A computer program that can compute that number is offered by the State of Texas Cattleman’s Cooperative, click here to run program. ... The “sex network” can answer anything that troubles you, click here for relief... The “UFO network” claims the “all cows in Texas have been replaced by aliens “Agent” Markup Language

Use that markup in query/portal interfaces

Services need Web Logics 2001: Semantic Web Services

Services off the desktop 2003: Semantic Web Services

So where have we got to Semantic Web technology use has exceeded even my wildest expectations What is different now? Semantic Search All the big kids are playing! Advertising drives Web markets “Markets are created by disaggregating the producer and the consumer” “Buzz” around data on the Web esp. Open Government Data

Example: OGP use growing quicklyFacebook incentivizing use of RDFa like buttons 15,178 sites of top 1,000,000 as of 3/3/11 Oct 2010: FB reportsRDFa is ~ 10-15% of > 3,000,000 likes per day! Facebook is encouraging developers to use the RDFaversion

Because they want the links! The network is where their money is made! (predicted >$5B of advertising in next two years)

Creates a platform for SW-powered apps

They said it couldn’t be done Common Criticisms

The Shirky fallacy Folksonomy will win Tagging the technology of choice ,[object Object]

Tagging doesn’t achieve goals without “social context”

Example: Flickr tag “James”; Amazon tag “My-…”The Network effect requires links (Hendler & Golbeck, JWS, 2008)

The database community fallacy The semantic web will never scale,1,000,000 triples and things go to heck Winner of the 2009 Billion Triples Challenge Just plain wrong!!

“ad hoc” data integrationexample: Linked Open Govt Data More than 50 of these at http://logd.tw.rpi.edu See also http://data.gov and http://data.gov.uk

And we do things the DB community struggles with

Another Shirky criticism This is just a make-work program to keep AI scientists busy doing what they’ve always done Cannot create an ontology at Web Scale AI never works so it won’t this time Logic and reasoning will not work on the Web because people disagree and because logic isn’t powerful enough for what is needed (ok, he called it syllogism, but we know what he meant)

The “bottom” of the Semantic Web What isseeing the mostuse?? RDFa

The success of “Linked Data” Maturation of RDF technologies SPARQL endpoints Fits Web development models RDFa Works well with current search paradigms A little semantics goes a long way BUT WHAT IS STUNNING IS JUST HOW LITTLE! Equality via same URI RDFa mostly w/DBMS not triple store Not only no reasoning, but hardly any “principled” inferencing!

The bad news… The ontology story is still confused

Decidable Logic basis inconsistency Ontology: the OWL DL view Ontology as Barad-Dur (Sauron's tower): Extremely powerful! Patrolled by Orcs Let one little hobbit in, and the whole thing could come crashing down

ontology: the linked-data view ontology and the tower of Babel We will build a tower to reach the sky We only need a little ontological agreement Who cares if we all speak different languages? Genesis 11:7 Let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

OWL has had successes Examples from Clark and Parsia (2011) Decision-support tool for sales people to automate policy driven cross-selling recommendations at very large US bank built out of RDF integrated data, OWL reasoning, and Pellet At global 25 company (another bank) OWL and Pellet form the core of a bank-wide Entitlements service to represent, analyze, and query every access control policy for the entire bank, globally, in 50+ legal jurisdictions And many other companies could claim similar But most of these sorts of systems are still just coming out of prototype phase And most are still more “expert” system than Web app

The tough love stuff OWL is succeeding to a large degree as a KR standard Building “expert systems” as a business has never gone away; OWL improves tooling But it is largely failing in bringing representation to the WWW cf. “misuse” of owl:sameAs >> “proper” use cf. rdf:class >> owl:class cf. it is rare that ontologies link to others

The gap is growing Linked-Data-based applications are growing in size, number and importance on the Web But the “vocabulary” story is still unclear Ontology research is turning OWL into a usable KR standard, But the linking story is still unclear No linking without vocabularies No network effect without links

What I think we MUST do Bridging the gap between the linked-data and ontology views requires some key research challenges to be addressed DL (and FOL) are useful formalisms for KR&R, but do not address the needs of the Web! Empirical comparisons are useful in scaling systems, but do not address the needs of an academic community!

My Challenge to you A sufficient formalism for Semantic Web applications must Provide a model that accounts for linked data What is the equivalent of a DB calculus? Provide a means for evaluating incomplete reasoners In practice we must be able to model A-box effects as formally as T-box technologies

Be bold! A sufficient formalism for Semantic Web applications must also Define what an ontology isontologies really are Including external referents linking between terms Including ontology alignment partial mapping Including non-expressive formalisms real-world “errors”

It just might work… One idea on how to get there Define common problems that offer features of interest to both communities Compare approaches with respect to performance Develop hybrids that have best features of both as necessary Repeat (thanks Bettina!)

Summary IADIS-2008 The infrastructure needs of intelligent systems are now being met by a combination of Semantic Web, Linked Data, Web Services and Rule-based systems Knowledge engineering can be jumpstarted from existing terminologies/ontologies, semi-structured systems, and other Web resources Web Services (espWSDL, SAWSDL) provide "wrappers" and other methods to let "legacy" systems play with agents Reasoners and rule-based systems are scaling in new ways, and receiving some standardization So where are all the agents???

Conclusion: “Why the Semantic Web will never work”? No reason at all The Semantic Web is here, it is working, and it will continue to do so But, for it to move to the next level and be all that we as a community have aspired for We must revisit and update the early visions for the modern web We must unify the “competing” models of linked-data and machine-readable vocabularies We must step up to some critical research challenges

Appendix Research Challenges (ca. 2008)

Research Challenges What is the Web culture? Design/use/analysis are connected to "cultural stereotypes" (Think HSBC ads) What are the cultural stereotypes in the emerging online community? What level of "knowledge" is needed by Web users? Is this dependent on application? User community? Is expressivity a plus, minus, non-issue? Especially in an open system (previous AI systems were "closed"

Research Challenges Computational challenges as "end user" support Scaling Semantic Web HCI (What do we show "real users"?) What are the trade-offs in use Virtually all AI literature assumes a high-cost, high-value model The Semantic Web is showing us alternative models What are the trade-offs, analyses If more and more of what we see includes integrated data from multiple sources, will that change the trust models Do we need to expose provenance? Will "provider" model be changed?

Research Challenges Who are the "experts" What level of expertise is needed to become "dangerous" with this new technology? What is the "ecosystem" (what is the equivalent of Web developer/web master/web user?) If more and more of what we see includes integrated data from multiple sources, will that change the trust models Do we need to expose provenance? Will "provider" model be changed? Formal vs. informal models of ontology I didn't discuss "folksonomy" but a key aspect is "social context" (Hendler & Golbeck, 08) Can social contexts use

"Why the Semantic Web will Never Work" (note the quotes)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to "Why the Semantic Web will Never Work" (note the quotes)

Similar to "Why the Semantic Web will Never Work" (note the quotes) (20)

More from James Hendler

More from James Hendler (13)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

"Why the Semantic Web will Never Work" (note the quotes)