vs Semantic Web: "Google
exec challenges Berners-Lee 'At the end of the keynote,
however, things took a different turn. Google Director of Search
and AAAI Fellow Peter Norvig was the first to the microphone during
the Q&A session, and he took the opportunity to raise a few
'What I get a lot is: 'Why are you against the Semantic Web?' I am
not against the Semantic Web. But from Google's point of view,
there are a few things you need to overcome, incompetence being the
first,' Norvig said. Norvig clarified that it was not Berners-Lee
or his group that he was referring to as incompetent, but the
Google Base -- summing up."
(Via More News.)
When will we drop the ill conceived notion that end-users are
Has it every occurred to software developers and technology
vendors that incompetent, dumb, and other contemptuous end-user
adjectives simply reflect the inability of most technology products
to surmount end-user "Interest Activation Thresholds"?
Interest Activation Threshold (IAT)? What's That?
I have a fundamental personal belief that all human beings are
intelligent. Our ability to demonstrate intelligence, or be
perceived as intelligent, is directly proportional to our interest
level in a given context. In short, we have "Ambivalence Quotients"
(AQs) just as we have "Intelligence Quotients" (IQs).
An interested human being is an inherently intelligent entity.
The abstract nature of human intelligence also makes locating the
IQ and AQ on/off buttons a mercurial quest at the best of
Technology end-users exhibit high AQs, most of the time due to
the inability of most technology products to truly engage, and
ultimately stimulate genuine interest, by surmounting IAT and
Ironically, when a technology vendor is lagging behind its
competitors in the "features arms race" it is common place to use
the familiar excuse: "our end-users aren't asking for this
Note To Google:
Ambivalence isn't incompetence. If end-users were genuinely
incompetent, how is that they run rings around your page rank
algorithms by producing google-friendly content at the expense of
valuable context? What about the
deteriorating value of Adsense due to click fraud? Likewise,
the continued erosion of the value of your once exemplary "keyword
based search" service? As we all know, necessity is the mother of
invention, so when users develop high AQs because there is nothing
better, we end up with a forced breech of "IAT"; which is why the
issues that I mention remain long term challenges for you.
Ironically, the so called "incompetents" are already outsmarting
you, and you don't seem to comprehend this reality or its
Finally, how you are going to improve value without integrating
the Semantic Web vision into your R&D roadmap? I can tell you
categorically that you have little or no wiggle room re. this
matter, especially if you want to remain true to your: "don't be
evil" mantra. My guess is that you will incorporate Semantic Web
technologies sooner rather than later (Google Co-op is a big clue).
I would even go as far as predicting a Google hosted SPARQL Query
Endpoint alongside your GData endpints during the next 6-12 months
(if even that long). I believe that your GData protocol (like the
rest of Web 2.0) will ultimately accelerate your appreciation of
the data model dexterity that RDF brings to loosely coupled
knowledge networks espoused by the Semantic Web vision.
Google & Semantic Web Paradox
The Semantic Web vision has the RDF graph data model at its core
(and for good reason), but even more confusing for me, as I process
Google sentiments about the Semantic Web, is the fact that RDF's
actual creator (Ramanathan Guha aka. Guha) currently works at
Google. There's a strange disconnect here IMHO.
If I recall correctly, Google wants to organize the worlds data
and information, leaving the knowledge organization to someone else
which is absolutely fine. What is increasingly irksome, is the
current tendency to use corporate stature to generate Fear,
Uncertainty, and Doubt when the subject matter is the "Semantic
BTW - I've just read
Frederick Giasson's perspective on the Google Semantic Web
paradox which ultimately leads to the same conclusions
regarding Google's FUD stance when dealing with matters relating to
the Semantic Web.
I wonder if anyone is tracking the google hits for "fud
google semantic web"?