Semantic Search Revealed
July 14, 2009
I read “Semantic Search round Table at the Semantic Technology Conference” in ZDNet Web logs. Paul Miller, the author of the write up, did a good job, including snippets from the participants in the round table. In order to get a sense of the companies, the topics covered, and the nuances of the session, please, read the original. I want to highlight three points that jumped out at me:
First, I saw that there was a lot of talk about semantics, but I did not come away from the participants’ comments with a sense that a single definition was in play. Two quick examples:
- One participant said, ‘It means different things’. Okay, but once again we have “wizards” talking about search in general and semantic search in particular and I am forced to deal with ambiguity. “Different things” means absolutely zero to me. True, I am an addled goose, but my warning flights started flashing.
- The Googler (artificial intelligence guru Dr. Peter Norvig) put my feathers back in place. He is quoted as saying, ‘Different types of answers are appropriate for different types of questions…’. That’s okay, but I think that definition should have been the operating foundation for the entire session.
Second, the wrap up of the article focused on Bing.com. Now Bing incorporates Powerset, according to what I have read. But Bing.com is variation on the types of search results that have been available from such companies as Endeca for a while and from newcomers like Kosmix. The point I wanted to have addressed is what specific use is being made of semantics in each of the search and content processing systems represented in the roundtable discussion. Unreasonable? Sure, but facts are better than generalities and faux politesse.
Finally, I did not learn much about search. Nothing unusual in that. Innovation was not what the participants were conveying in their comments.
Bottomline: great write up, disappointing information.
Stephen Arnold, July 14, 2009