Goggle 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 points.

'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 general user.'

Related: Google Base -- summing up."

(Via More News.)

When will we drop the ill conceived notion that end-users are incompetent?

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 times.

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 reducing AQ.

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 feature".

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 inevitable consequences.

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 Web".

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"?