Internet Hierarchy of Needs elaborated, Part 4
Summary: This post is part of a series; it’s a discussion on my thinking behind Level 4 of the Internet Hierarchy of Needs. You can find the original Internet Hierarchy of Needs post here, and you can also follow the discussion thus far: Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3.
Level 4: Semantic Needs
The ability to derive meaning from language, content and context
Following yesterday’s post, Brian Hayes wrote in to query the language I had used:
In this post the nub of its declaration seems to be, “Level 3 says that we have to be able to interpret” data now connected. To illustrate, you cite emerging tools to help us interpret such as the innovative focus that new search engines bring. Yes, there’s increasing vertical efficiency, perhaps increasing aggregation.
If we look for a node of data, any unique term, will new tools help gather adjacent and related nodes of data - as if gathering a matrix for us? Or am I not getting it?
Level 3. To interpret. Seems like a huge plateau.
I clarified that my thinking behind Level 3 was more about interpreting the connections themselves (i.e., measuring the relevance of a website based on how many other sites link to it rather than on the content it contains).
The whole social networking movement is a good example of Level 3 as well, in which the primary value proposition comes from the ’social graph’: taking someone’s human connections, translating them to the world of the Internet, and deriving meaning solely from the fact of the connections rather than from the essence of the people connected.
Level 4 is where we get into semantics: interpreting content and deriving meaning therefrom. (I can’t believe I just used the word ‘therefrom’ in a blog post.)
Semantics are the next evolutionary breakthrough of the Internet, teasing us with veiled glances and innuendo, yet remaining tantalizingly just out of reach. Powerset, Hakia, Twine… all attempts at hurdling the barrier that keeps the machine from extracting the meaning behind our online activities.
The reason this is such a compelling problem to solve is simple: it represents a quantum leap in the potential of the Internet. It’s the difference between being forced to add numbers and learning how to multiply. It’s the difference between a horse and a car. People are realizing the limitations of the current system, and beginning to look around for something better. If you ask the average Google user what he wants, he’s unlikely to reply, “A bigger index.”
Without the ability to understand the data, we would slowly lose the opportunity for any sort of quantum leap or disruptive shift, and the incremental improvements in our experience will continue to decrease proportionally. Once we add meaning, though, vast horizons become open to us.
How will it happen? I have absolutely no idea. RDF, OWL, semantic search, standards… who knows?
The nature of our species, though, is always trending towards more and faster evolution—we won’t be satisfied with anything less. Just as a critical mass of people says, “This isn’t working,” a small core of geniuses will say, “Here’s a better way.”
Your thoughts and reactions are, as always, gratefully received.
June 9th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Coctail napkins and scraps of paper. All revolves about concept formation and communication.
Gestalt psych helps with the tipping point. You are on the right track, though: the more questions the engine asks me, the more the axiology and stoichiometry will involve me in the mathematical and Factor Analytic sense. I can be represented as a complex object lens, but only if you bother to get to know me!
You can question me via the questionnaire or the Action Maze, but I need to do something. I can’t just sit there and expect others to do all the work. This will make sense.