Free AI web copilot to create summaries, insights and extended knowledge, download it at here

Abstract

ct with others. Social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, MySpace, and countless others have looked to profit from connecting teens, communities, professionals, and just about any other type of demographic.The extreme proliferation of social networks has even resulted in a mildly derogatory acronym — YASNS (Yet Another Social Networking Service) — used to deride the emergence of the latest and greatest new social network.<h1 id="5ef1">Web 2.0 refuses to adopt FOAF.</h1>The Semantic Web and Web 3.0 are not YASNS. These newer semantic technologies can bring a lot of value to the existing social network platforms in many ways.Web 3.0 can enable social network data portability with a format called FOAF (Friend of a Friend). The FOAF format is already widely used by millions of people, and some social networks already allow the import and export of FOAF data so that their users can keep and reuse all that data they upload to their services.Social networking sites don’t work with each other. There’s little incentive from a business standpoint to interoperate among social networks. Still, the people using social networks are frequently frustrated that they cannot own their profiles.Why do we have to keep our Facebook profiles, LinkedIn profiles, and Twitter profiles separate? The rest of our lives aren’t partitioned this way?If you think about it, this is quite a leap from the social network literally owning your data to taking back control and ownership of your data on your terms. This is one small example of how Web 3.0 can help you regain control over your data.But, social networking platforms are corporations.And corporations do what they always do. They profit from as much for as little as they can. In this case, OUR data.<blockquote id="d597">They will never adopt FOAF voluntarily. It will take some outside pressure from either society itself or worst-case scenario, regulation. The corporations will try to persuade us in thinking regulation is bad whilst simultaneously refusing to adopt FOAF. Web 2.0 is not really for the people.</blockquote><h1 id="5c1e">Web 2.0 discovers metadata and calls itself Web 3.0</h1>In some cases, Web 2.0 sites are starting to use Web 3.0 (in other words, the Semantic Web) technologies. As Web 2.0 businesses begin to utilize the power of metadata, they need more flexible ways to capture and define content on their pages.They know that people want to reuse chunks of data, not just whole pages. So they are increasingly starting to use Web 3.0 technologies like microformats, RDFa, and other tagging technologies, to achieve true portability and reuse.Metadata is simply a way to enrich data so that software systems can interact with information. Metadata about models, vocabularies and even programming languages are merely ways to supply “data about data” so

Options

that an interpreter, processor, or algorithm knows what to do. There is no magic with metadata.Web 3.0 has been described as the “data Web” and the “executable Web.” Both labels are accurate. Using the analogy of word processing, Web 1.0 is a single person editing a document. Web 2.0 is a group of people editing a document. Web 3.0 is a group of people creating bits of data outside of documents. But we are not there yet.Or are we?Welcome to the Future of Data and the Web altogether. That is the data Web. That is the executable Web. In both cases, the core idea is that information on the Web is becoming more connected, more fine-grained, and more dynamic.Information isn’t just about pages; it’s about data that’s connected and capable of being reassembled on demand. This reassembly of data, the reorganization of data pieces, is a crucial central element of the Web 3.0 and Semantic Web movements — the executable data Web.There is only one problem for us with this. Now we cannot distinguish between the software — owned by the organization, and the data — supposedly owned by the people.There is a lot more going on in terms of the use of Web 3.0 technologies. We will never know. We don’t have to. They are corporations, and we are consumers. We don’t pay for the product, so therefore we are the product.<blockquote id="f66a">If we followed the advice of the Web 3.0 pioneers, then any company , now and in the future, would have been forced, using agreed-upon standards, to separate their technology from OUR data.</blockquote><h1 id="e75e">Conclusion</h1>There is a lot more going on in the Web 3.0 space. It is impossible to cover all that in one article.We talked about Web 2.0 sites and how we, as a society, were the driving force behind their gain in popularity over the years.Social media companies are not willing to exchange data even though Web 3.0 technologies have been available for years.How big tech companies push back against industry proposed standards in every Semantic Web Symposium since 2008. It even continues today as I am writing this article.Technologies like Web 3.0, cryptocurrencies, and many others can either be used for the good of society or against society.What are we going to do?If you have any thoughts or questions, please feel free to engage in the comment section.If you enjoy reading stories like these and want to support other writers and me, consider <a href="https://llewdaniels.medium.com/membership">signing up to become a Medium </a>member. It’s $5 a month, giving you unlimited access to stories on Medium. If you sign up <a href="https://llewdaniels.medium.com/membership">using my link</a>, I’ll earn a small commission at<a href="https://llewdaniels.medium.com/membership"> no extra cost to you</a>. Thank You.</article></body>

THE WEB 3.0 STORY #003

Web 3.0 Is For Data, Not For The People

Corporations will try to keep it that way

For the sake of conformity and marketing hype, let’s keep on referring to the Semantic Web as Web 3.0. It remains an essential technology for the future, regardless of what we call it.

And so, we stuck with Web 3.0.

The previous article attempted to do three things:

Remain within the 2008 to 2010 timeframe—the same as the visionaries. This kind of helpful approach shapes my thinking on current developments compared to what the visionaries intended for the technology.
Draw a parallel with the Insulin and Truvada stories. The aim was to serve as a reminder of what corporations can sometimes do in the interest of profit.
Look at Web 3.0 from four angles — an upgrade to the Web, a meta technology for business software, a social movement for open data, and a new generation for artificial intelligence.

We are surrounded by business software in almost every facet of our lives.

All these businesses have already adopted technologies proposed by the Semantic Web ( Web 3.0) consortium. It is not commonly known since their technology and data are treated as private.

This is not the case for big tech companies. With most prominent tech companies, there is a clear distinction between the technology and the data.

The data used and generated by the big tech companies normally belongs to the people that use their platforms.

Web 2.0 is for the people.

Somewhere along the way, somebody noticed that the Internet could enable people to collaborate in ways that they couldn’t do without the internet/web. After a few Web sites that encouraged this group behavior was created, Web 2.0 was born.

Ever since group behavior became an essential part of mainstream Web sites, companies have found numerous ways to exploit the behavior of Web surfers.

Simple uses of Web 2.0 ideas include businesses like Amazon.com, soliciting product rankings from consumers and offering shoppers hints of what others have bought. A subtle form of persuasion.

More overt notions of Web 2.0 include the many social networking Websites that have tried to profit from the basic human need to connect with others. Social platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, LinkedIn, MySpace, and countless others have looked to profit from connecting teens, communities, professionals, and just about any other type of demographic.

The extreme proliferation of social networks has even resulted in a mildly derogatory acronym — YASNS (Yet Another Social Networking Service) — used to deride the emergence of the latest and greatest new social network.

Web 2.0 refuses to adopt FOAF.

The Semantic Web and Web 3.0 are not YASNS. These newer semantic technologies can bring a lot of value to the existing social network platforms in many ways.

Web 3.0 can enable social network data portability with a format called FOAF (Friend of a Friend). The FOAF format is already widely used by millions of people, and some social networks already allow the import and export of FOAF data so that their users can keep and reuse all that data they upload to their services.

Social networking sites don’t work with each other. There’s little incentive from a business standpoint to interoperate among social networks. Still, the people using social networks are frequently frustrated that they cannot own their profiles.

Why do we have to keep our Facebook profiles, LinkedIn profiles, and Twitter profiles separate? The rest of our lives aren’t partitioned this way?

If you think about it, this is quite a leap from the social network literally owning your data to taking back control and ownership of your data on your terms. This is one small example of how Web 3.0 can help you regain control over your data.

But, social networking platforms are corporations.

And corporations do what they always do. They profit from as much for as little as they can. In this case, OUR data.

They will never adopt FOAF voluntarily. It will take some outside pressure from either society itself or worst-case scenario, regulation. The corporations will try to persuade us in thinking regulation is bad whilst simultaneously refusing to adopt FOAF. Web 2.0 is not really for the people.

Web 2.0 discovers metadata and calls itself Web 3.0

In some cases, Web 2.0 sites are starting to use Web 3.0 (in other words, the Semantic Web) technologies. As Web 2.0 businesses begin to utilize the power of metadata, they need more flexible ways to capture and define content on their pages.

They know that people want to reuse chunks of data, not just whole pages. So they are increasingly starting to use Web 3.0 technologies like microformats, RDFa, and other tagging technologies, to achieve true portability and reuse.

Metadata is simply a way to enrich data so that software systems can interact with information. Metadata about models, vocabularies and even programming languages are merely ways to supply “data about data” so that an interpreter, processor, or algorithm knows what to do. There is no magic with metadata.

Web 3.0 has been described as the “data Web” and the “executable Web.” Both labels are accurate. Using the analogy of word processing, Web 1.0 is a single person editing a document. Web 2.0 is a group of people editing a document. Web 3.0 is a group of people creating bits of data outside of documents. But we are not there yet.

Or are we?

Welcome to the Future of Data and the Web altogether. That is the data Web. That is the executable Web. In both cases, the core idea is that information on the Web is becoming more connected, more fine-grained, and more dynamic.

Information isn’t just about pages; it’s about data that’s connected and capable of being reassembled on demand. This reassembly of data, the reorganization of data pieces, is a crucial central element of the Web 3.0 and Semantic Web movements — the executable data Web.

There is only one problem for us with this. Now we cannot distinguish between the software — owned by the organization, and the data — supposedly owned by the people.

There is a lot more going on in terms of the use of Web 3.0 technologies. We will never know. We don’t have to. They are corporations, and we are consumers. We don’t pay for the product, so therefore we are the product.

If we followed the advice of the Web 3.0 pioneers, then any company , now and in the future, would have been forced, using agreed-upon standards, to separate their technology from OUR data.

Conclusion

There is a lot more going on in the Web 3.0 space. It is impossible to cover all that in one article.

We talked about Web 2.0 sites and how we, as a society, were the driving force behind their gain in popularity over the years.

Social media companies are not willing to exchange data even though Web 3.0 technologies have been available for years.

How big tech companies push back against industry proposed standards in every Semantic Web Symposium since 2008. It even continues today as I am writing this article.

Technologies like Web 3.0, cryptocurrencies, and many others can either be used for the good of society or against society.

What are we going to do?

If you have any thoughts or questions, please feel free to engage in the comment section.

If you enjoy reading stories like these and want to support other writers and me, consider signing up to become a Medium member. It’s $5 a month, giving you unlimited access to stories on Medium. If you sign up using my link, I’ll earn a small commission at no extra cost to you. Thank You.