Twine is a new service in private beta that as best I can tell should really be the embodiment of the semantic web in a web consumer service.
The idea behind the semantic web is that information should be connected to other information based on the "semantics", i.e. meaning, of the information. For example San Francisco is a place and California is a place. And the relationship between them is that San Francisco is a "city in" California. The idea is that for every two object that are related, we should be able to define what the relationship is.
By collecting lots of information in a given subject area we should start to be able to ask intelligent questions of the system. In theory, if things got big and powerful enough all of the world's knowledge could be captured and queried, making for a real life version of HAL.
The idea of Twine seems to be to get you to link to lots of pages kinda like del.icio.us bookmarking, to indicate that they are related to a subject, to create distinct subject areas where more than just information is collected but actual knowledge is built.
But I have to say, I am not shocked by the review. The problem with Twine begins before you get to the product itself. I really don't even need to use it to suspect it might suck. It is a problem with everything I have actually seen which relates to the semantic web.
The problem is, no one understands.
As I wrote in my Death of the Relational Database article, many of the ideas that underpin the semantic web are powerful, but they have been designed and executed by people that are all just a bit too smart. Robert Scoble does an interview with Noka Spivack, the CEO of Radar Networks, which is the creator of Twine.
Nova Spivack's problem: Too Smart.
Watch that interview, and then report back in the comments WTF you think Twine is for. I dare you. If you can, it just proves one thing. You are smarter than me.
The problem is that no one in "semantic web land" can explain what it's for. This holds true at the platform and tools level, and, with Twine as example number one, it also holds true at the consumer service level.
So getting back to Marshall's review. The good news in the review is that, apparently, once you actually try the product, it seems as though one might be able to glean that there could be utility there. Marshall's problem is that he couldn't get any value from it and couldn't figure the interface out. His two big headlines were, "It Doesn't Work Very Well", and "It's Poorly Organized".
Interestingly, there are two sides to this coin. One of Marshall's commenters, David Scott Lewis, who is apparently one of the most active users of Twine, responds that the product is useful, but that Marshall didn't give it enough of a chance and didnt do it right. He also says that Twine really isn't ready yet but that it has lots of potential. But interestingly, David feels compelled to tell us that he is not just some blogger, but was an analyst at the Meta Group. In other words, he too is too smart.
The thing is, yes, I have been working with computers for 30 years, but I have no tolerance for consumer products that are too complex. My eyes glaze over. So as I see it, requiring users to be "smart enough to get it" is a very low design target for any supposedly general audience web product. And so, to me, suggesting that the user didn't try hard enough or didn't explore correctly are the kind of comments appropriate for something coming out of a university research lab, but not for a product that is in beta, preparing for public release. Indeed there are some powerful ideas under the hood of semantic web technology. The question is can you make any of these products acessible and obviously useful.
And so, while I am sure Twine has some amazing technology particularly relating to natural language processing, what is clear is that making a mainstream product that could be understood and appreciated by the masses was not job one at Radar Networks. Because if it was, no matter how early it was in the product lifecycle, a reviewer like Marshall Kirkpatrick wouldn't be confused as to how to use the product, and I wouldnt be confused as to WTF its for.
10 comments:
Here, here, Hank!
I tried to make many of the same points myself in an earlier post, The Shaky Semantics of the Semantic Web, but in not nearly so succinct a manner!
Keep giving 'em hell.
Hank,
I agree with you position re. the general ambiguity associated with most Semantic Web value proposition postulations.
Here is the Semantic Web value prop. in a nutshell:
Manifestation of a Web of Linked Data as a compliment to the existing Web of Linked Documents.
Thus, rather than only have the ability to reference and de-reference (via HTTP) Data Objects of Type Document, you can also extend this feature to Data Objects of Types beyond Document e.g. People, Places, Subject Concepts (formalized Tagging with associated meaning) etc..
The error of many that espouse being "Semantic Web" applications is that they fail the basic Web tenet that requires enrichment via Hyperlinks. Put differently many are offering the Document Web equivalent of Pages without Hyperlinks since they are keeping the Hyperlinks inside the application logic driving their apps.
My basic Linked Data Demo is embodied in my Personal Data Space URIs:
1. http://myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/kidehen
2. http://community.linkeddata.org/person/kidehen2
Just look at the "Linked Data" Tab in my profile page, and see where it takes via its Data Links (Hyperdata as opposed to Hypertext links to documents that describe the attributes and relationships of all data associated with me.)
I agree. Until someone comes along and releases an app that takes advantage of the semantic web, but completely *hides* it from the user, the whole thing is in the realm of "architecture astronauts" right now.
Near as I can tell, the 2 companies who are farthest along with semantic web in the consumer space are Adaptive Blue and Freebase.
AFA Adaptive Blue, no disrespect to their founder and dev team, who I'm friendly with, but I have trouble seeing how it's a compelling app that people really *need*. Frankly, unless I'm missing something (and I'll freely grant that I might be), all it really seems to do is save me a few mouse clicks.
And AFA Freebase, the concept seems cool: kinda like a Wikipedia on steroids. But it's hard to tell so early on whether, similary, it will wind up not delivering something really *compelling* to the end user.
Frankly, the company that's probably got the best chance of bringing the semantic web to the end user is Google. They're the most advanced in gleaning meaning from data, and have more data than anyone else, which should provide them with a leg up on trying to extract semantic info from it. (Plus, they're arguably the best at creating simple UI's that display complex data to end-users too.)
I haven't seen Twine but am not surprised by your reaction. Your point about the semantic web goes deep.
To build something people care about using semantic web information or architecture is going to be exceedingly hard. This is because compelling (and so valuable) services and applications have a context of use. Context always depends on specific circumstances and the 'push' from the semantic web does not allow for situating that data in context(s). IMO, a lot of money, time, and talent is headed down a cul de sac.
indeed:
"suggesting that the user didn't try hard enough or didn't explore correctly are the kind of comments appropriate for something coming out of a university research lab, but not for a product that is in beta, preparing for public release"
The fact that only academics come up with semanitc web products clearly means that the technology isn't mature enough yet.
If it ever will be, as the semantic web vision expects humans to think like machines, which is a fundamentally wrong statement
Sounds like you did a review based on what someone else said. I think you should wait until you can try it. I just started using it today, and it seems to be a very useful tool and not difficult to figure out.
"Sounds like you did a review based on what someone else said."
uhh... yes! That's what it says in the headline: "Read Write Web Says:"
I'm a month late and probably more than a dollar short, but I think of semantic web apps as sort of like the web in 1994/1995. There wasn't a good way to get around. It was very confusing. You really didn't know quite what you were looking at. And explaining it to other people was near impossible.
We are inundated with information every single day online. RSS feeds are a horrifying deluge. How much time do you spend sorting through posts you don't care about simply because they are on a blog that's sometimes relevant to your interests? It's just another way to parse this information flow to make it more relevant and sift out more of the irrelevance. And it's so early on in its development that I do think it's difficult to get why we'd want it. But 20 years ago, no one could really understand why we'd want social media either.
Yes, fourlittlebees I agree that semantic web concepts are important. I am primarily harping on architecture and design issues. Things tend to take off when people figure out how to make them a reasonably small increment from the status quo. That whats wrong with the semantic web. Social media was not a revolution. It was an evolution. People tried one small step and then the next and then the next. I just suspect that Twine, based on the ReadWriteWeb review has not figured out how to take this first incremental step. Of course I look forward to seeing for myself.
Very well said.
The thing I hate about twine is that it immediately makes me feel stupid. I don't think anyone likes to feel stupid.
After playing with twine for a few hours, I still have no idea what its purpose is. It just seems like a remix of digg/magnolia/delicious/whatever.
I wrote to twine asking them to help me understand what twine is, but apparently if you need to ask...
Post a Comment