Readings - Week 9

Semantic Web 2.0
The Two Cultures: Mashing up Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web

What is the current relationship between Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web?

Web 2.0 has an open development philosophy which has propelled into the forefront of current web-technologies and also set the pace for new ventures or start-ups. Most Web 2.0 applications depend on an implicit, lightweight, flexible, and shared semantic model between Web-linked application elements. They require shared meaning to link their various components and data sources as well as to integrate and organize data in response to user direction. Semantic web could potentially prove to be the underbelly of Web 2.0 applications, in its use of effective semantic tagging, ontology management and URL linking systems. However, the complexity of RDF and OWL are seen as a hindrance for many developers who ultimately choose to take the lightweight and flexible approach of Web 2.0. This in turn generates data-sets that is often poor and sloppy in breadth and proves to be difficult to apply to the pure nature of Semantic techniques. Current Semantic Web has no practical, scalable way for non-experts to create and maintain adequate mapping functions between large amounts of constantly changing ontology and instance information or to manage their periodic versioning and maintenance

How can Semantic Web technologies bring benefit to Web 2.0-style applications?

Although these two technologies are vastly different in their design, purpose and style, it is a common belief that they are actually complimenting rather than mutually-exclusive technologies. Many believe that the strengths of the one technology can be used to enhance or better the weaknesses of the other, making it a lucrative field of research as well as potential commercial revenue on the future web as we know it. The Semantic web can learn from Web 2.0’s focus on community and interactivity, while Web 2.0 can draw from the Semantic Web’s rich technical infrastructure for exchanging information across application boundaries. Here are some benefits that Semantic Web could potentially bring to already existing Web 2.0 applications:

• Reusing data from the Web – With effective tools, semantics could be used to set up Web 2.0 applications to “fetch” data from different sources on the web. This data can either be static, in that it is updated once or dynamic, which will be updated as data from the source is updated.

• Dynamic data sources – Plugins could be configured to be user-specific, hence enhancing the feel of Web 2.0 applications and personalizing them further. Since this is dynamic, the source of the content serves as a feeder for the Web 2.0 application. Technologies used in this include RDF or XML and OWL which enable a greater interoperability, control, correctness and consistency of the data allowing organizations to reach a larger group of users and propagate changes more efficiently.

• Personalization of Web sites – using open web-standards like an HTTP GET command in order to send and receive a certain file, containing preset user location and personal information, enhancing the application immediately, by only presenting data relevant to that user in that particular location.

• Giving Back to the Web – Inputs by users into the application plugins, serve as data that is pumped back into the semantic web system, effectively enhancing the taxonomies and ontologies. Websites can benefit by collecting a plethora of data from users and enhancing the data sent back to the users.

Readings - Week 8

Studying cooperation and conflict between authors with history flow visualizations

What are the main problems of the Wikipedia as described by the authors, and how does the community deal with them?

Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia which detours from the normal “conventional” way of online encyclopedia’s. Unlike conventional ones, where the articles are written by a single author and then submitted for review and possible editing before being posted, Wikipedia followed a different route. This route allows for anyone to create, edit and post an article on the site, making it an open community with free access. This radical new view had a lot of pessimism at first, but it soon turned out to be a huge success and set the tone for other online community sites. The authors and community also use certain “tools” to their disposal to track their or other articles in which they have interest. These tools allow them to quickly respond to new articles, edits of their articles or general discussions concerning an article or new post.

• Page history where a user can see the history of each article.
• Recent changes where the list of recently updated or added articles can be found
• Watch list which allows users to keep a watch list of a pages they wish to monitor closely.
• Talk pages where the Wikipedia community discuss topics on “real” pages.

Due to the nature and design of Wikipedia, it is vulnerable to a few snags and problems, which will be described next:

Vandalism and Repair

Wiki’s are subject to malicious edits or vandalism which can take several forms:

1. Mass deletion: deletion of all contents of a page
2. Offensive copy: insertion of vulgarities or slurs
3. Phony copy: insertion of text unrelated to the page topic
4. Phony redirection: linking a page to unrelated or offensive terms
5. Idiosyncratic copy: adding text that is related to the topic of the page but which is clearly one-sided, not of general interest, or inflammatory (biased)

Within the community, authors quickly ascertain when an act of vandalism has occurred using the tools described above. The vandalism is quickly repaired and the articles are again posted in the state it was before the act. Sometimes, authors cannot agree whether an edit constitutes an act of vandalism and therefore, a vandalism-tracking page has been set up where authors can discuss this in more depth and natural basis.

Edit Wars

A second pattern that often emerges in Wikipedia is that of “edit wars” where people or groups alternate between versions of a document. This is often found when two or more people are contrasting each other on certain information and/or content, since they both have different views. These issues are resolved in different ways. One such is where the authors leave comments on why they have edited a specific page. Often these comments are addressed to the previous editor and explains the reason for the edit directly to that author, making it a more personal form of communication. Another method is the use of “talk pages” which have been designed specifically for this situation. Here, authors and editors can discuss the article at length and come to a formal conclusion and solution, which is then incorporated into the wiki article.

Authorship

Another contentious subject is that of article authorship. Whilst many feel the need to make it visible that “they” were the ones to submit an article, the larger community feels that it violates the open policy of Wikipedia and also infringes on the “Neutral Point of View” (NPOV) which Wikipedia strives for. Therefore, whilst the authorship of a specific article is not present on the article page itself, the talk-pages, where authors leave comments or discuss the topic are often signed with the authors user name, and in the case of anonymous users, an IP address is appended. This creates a sense of personal community where people can get to know the authors of certain articles and build a personal preference towards some.

A Content-Driven reputation system for the Wikipedia

What different notions of reputation in Wikipedia do the authors discuss?

One of the most predominant reputation measuring systems used by online systems today is that of user-driven reputation. This is where user A rates user B on what they perceive to be good submitted content or information. This however is based on personal preference and often lacks the critical eye which distances itself from personal preference. Subjective, rather than objective…

In this paper, the authors propose a content-driven reputation system, which could be used by Wikipedia to rate authors based on the content where they gain reputation when the edits they perform to Wikipedia articles are preserved by subsequent authors, and they lose reputation when the edits are undone in short order. The lifespan of an edit to a Wikipedia article is inferred from an analysis of the subsequent versions of the article. We call such reputation content-driven, since it is computed on the basis of how content evolves, rather than on the basis of user comments or ratings. This form of reputation rating will basically portray three forms of reputation or value:

• Prescriptive value: reputation systems specify the way in which users can gain reputation, and thus define, and prescribe, what constitutes “good behavior” on the users’ part. Users are strongly encouraged to follow the prescribed behavior, lest their reputation —and their ability to use the system — suffer.

• Descriptive value: reputation systems can be used to classify users, and their contributions, on the basis of their reputation, making it easier to spot high-quality users or contributions, and flagging contributions or users with low reputation.

• Predictive value: an author’s reputation should be statistically related to the quality of the author’s future contributions. This value could also lead to author-trust where articles by that author can be trusted to be accurate in the future by other users.

Readings - Week 7

Enterprise 2.0: The Dawn of Emergent Collaboration
Corporate Blogging: Building community through persistent digital talk.

What opportunities/benefit do the authors claim for introducing Enterprise 2.0/Blogging technologies into the enterprise?

Whilst many companies have a lot of corporate software available to enhance the daily work activities of their employees, it is often felt that these software are either underused, utilized incorrectly or even seem daunting to new or uninformed users. Many of the software used today are also a one-way avenue e.g. emails are great for communication, but are only read by a few people who are on the receivers list. Furthermore, company intranet sites, whilst a good idea, is bound by the logic and intuitive design of management, and they decide what content would need to be appropriate for the site. This is where Enterprise 2.0 applications or corporate blogging comes into play.

Whilst these tools have been around for some years, they have not been readily adopted into organizations, since they distract from the centralized information “control” initiative which many companies stand by. These tools, like wiki’s or blogs, allow all users to edit information, add knowledge or even comment on others posts. This is so to say, a platform that encourages a collective authoring of thoughts, ideas and information…quite a leap away from the company view. Yet, it is within this environment that some companies have come to realize that in order for them to collect the vast amount of knowledge circulating in the enterprise and to readily manage and make it available to the employees, they need to open up the gates of control and allow their employees to share and contribute to the Knowledge Management of the enterprise.

The benefits are staggering, since now employees, who are often the individuals with the expertise in their particular area can contribute to the overall process and enhance the everyone’s benefit that they receive by using these tools. As stated, previous intranets where bogged down by manager suggested content and limited to change or discussion since they were also structured in very formal ways. No more though, because the network effect that drives these tools (Enterprise 2.0) becomes apparent when more and more people use it. The system inadvertently becomes better, sexier and smarter when more employees choose to use and contribute to it, making it a growing and modern platform with the most recent and relative information right at the fingertips of the employee. Now more than ever, employees can see what other departments are focusing on, what the status of the project is (important information to them) and what Sally in accounting thinks about the new tax-law and how it should be applied to everyday working activities. Employees also gain informational, personal and social benefits by using these tools and often managers can receive the benefit that they can really find out how their employees see the company or project as a whole. These tools also serve the purpose of building a feeling of “community” within an organization, where people from different backgrounds and social standing come together in the same collaborative environment and communicate or discuss important aspects or ideas.