The text summarizes the ideas expressed by the author in the report "Β».
The main disadvantages and problems of the modern web:
- The catastrophic congestion of the network with repeatedly duplicated content, in the absence of a reliable mechanism for finding the original source.
- Dispersed and disconnected content is the impossibility of making an exhaustive selection by topic and, moreover, by levels of analysis.
- Dependence of the form of content presentation on publishers (often random, pursuing their own, usually commercial, goals).
- Weak connection of search results with the ontology (structure of interests) of the user.
- Low availability and poor classification of archival content of the network (in particular, social networks).
- Little participation of professionals in the organization (systematization) of content, although it is they who, by the nature of their activities, are daily engaged in the systematization of knowledge, but the result of their work is recorded only on local computers.
The main reason for the clutter and irrelevance of the network is the site device inherited from Web 1.0, in which the main person in the network is not the owner of the information, but the owner of the place where it is located. That is, the ideology of material carriers of content was transferred to the network, where the main thing was the place (library, kiosk, fence) and the object (book, newspaper, piece of paper), and only then their content. But since, unlike the real world, space in the virtual world is not limited and costs a penny, the number of places offering information exceeded the number of unique content units by orders of magnitude. Web 2.0 partially corrected the situation: each user received his own personal space - an account on a social network and the freedom to configure it to a certain extent. But the problem with the uniqueness of the content only got worse: copy-paste technology increased the degree of duplication of information by orders of magnitude.
Efforts to overcome these problems of the modern Internet are concentrated in two, to some extent interconnected, directions.
- Improving search accuracy by microformatting content distributed across sites.
- Creation of "repositories" of reliable content.
The first direction, of course, allows you to get a more relevant search, compared to the option of specifying keywords, but does not remove the problem of duplicating content, and most importantly, does not eliminate the possibility of forgery - the systematization of information is most often done by its owner, and not by the author, and even more so the consumer who is most interested in search relevance.
Developments in the second direction (Google, , etc.) make it possible to obtain unambiguously reliable information, but only in areas where this is possible - the problem of knowledge pluralism remains open in areas where there are no common standards and a common logic for systematizing data. It is difficult to solve the problem of obtaining, systematizing and including new (current) content in the database, which is the main problem in the modern socially oriented network.
What solutions does the user-centric active approach outlined in the report βΒ»
- Refusal of the site structure - the main element of the network should be a unit of content, and not its location; the network node must be a user, with a set of content units configured relative to it, which can be called the user's ontology.
- Logical relativism (pluralism), stating the impossibility of the existence of a single logic of information organization, recognizing the need for a non-finite number of practically independent ontological clusters, even within the same topic. Each cluster is an ontology of some user (individual or generalized).
- An active approach to the construction of ontologies, which implies that the ontology (cluster structure) is formed and manifested in the activity of the content generator. This approach necessarily requires the reorientation of network services from content generation to ontology generation, which in essence means the creation of tools for implementing any activity on the network. The latter will attract many professionals to the network who will ensure its functioning.
The last point can be described in more detail:
- Ontology is created by a professional in the course of his professional activity. The system provides the professional with all the tools to enter, organize and process any type of data.
- Ontology is revealed in the activity of a professional. Now this has become possible, since a large percentage of the operations of any activity is performed or recorded on the computer. A professional should not build ontologies, he should act in a software environment, which is at the same time the main tool of his activity and a generator of ontologies.
- Ontology becomes the main result of the activity (both for the system and for the professional) - the product of professional work (text, presentation, table) is only a reason for building the ontology of this activity. Not the ontology is tied to the product (text), but the text is understood as an object generated in a specific ontology.
- An ontology must be understood as an ontology of a particular activity; how many activities - so many ontologies.
So, the main conclusion: Web 3.0 is a transition from a site-centric web to a semantic user-centric network - from a network of web pages with arbitrarily configured content to a network of unique objects united in an infinite number of cluster ontologies. From the technical side of Web 3.0, this is a set of online services that provide a full range of tools for entering, editing, searching and displaying any type of content, which simultaneously provide ontologization of user activity, and through it ontologization of content.
Alexander Boldachev, 2012-2015
Source: habr.com