• Pat Grady

    Given the complexity and pace of change, pity the newbies. More logic and semantics courses are needed.

  • http://www.paulbruemmer.com/ Paul Bruemmer

    Qualified training courses in Semantic SEO may evolve from the Semantic Computer Consortium (SCC). UC-Irvine, UC-Los Angeles, and UC-San Diego will be developing semantic technologies to facilitate the transition of the Internet into Web 3.0.

  • http://www.baratilla.com/ Jay Baratilla

    Does this mean, training your content manager to apply simple subject-predicate-object semantic structures to webpage text content could help your website survive the evolving semantic search? Also, should we be using structured data to all types of our content in our website?

  • Rajesh_magar

    I’ve never read anything interesting and fully informational post like this from long time. And the concept you describe is truly revolutionary and must need to adopt by internet marketer to survive in future marketing strategy.

    Thanks again and would love to hear more on this topic in future.

  • http://www.cygnet-infotech.com/ Boni Satani

    awesome. Thanks for the insights

  • http://www.paulbruemmer.com/ Paul Bruemmer

    We don’t think it will be simple. The purpose of
    this article was to introduce and simplify very complex changes to
    search and answer engines ongoing now and in the future. Training will
    certainly help practitioners make the transition as the semantic web and Internet evolve. We believe that using structured data for all schema types (all
    digital assets) will become standard operating procedure. Therefore, we
    recommend getting started now vs. later.

  • http://www.otriadmarketing.com/ Christopher Skyi

    This is clearly the future of search for information that has semantic structure defined within a limited set of structured data templates (i.e., schema.org) — but

    . . . not all human knowledge, and therefore not all possible content, can be represented by semantic mark up, i.e., we’ll never be able to breakdown all possible content into explicit semantic objects because human knowledge is too vast — and even if we could enlarge something like schema.org to cover all the possible things that we “know,” there’s a far larger problem — human brains create new knowledge, new semantic structures (i.e., relationships) on the fly.

    This is why existing AI programs designed to “understand” some aspect of the world have never been as smart or knowledgeable about the world as we are, in large part because we keep inventing new knowledge about the world.

    Semantic objects along with “page rank” will make Google and Bing incrementally more useful to searchers but the enlarged future of search will include something like IBM’s “Watson” which can deal with vastly more complicated knowledge structures than (at least existing) structured data templates can.

    For more, see this Wired article “Google in Jeopardy: What If IBM’s Watson Dethroned the King of Search?” http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/10/google-in-jeopardy-what-if-watson-beat-the-search-giant/

  • http://www.paulbruemmer.com/ Paul Bruemmer

    Good point Christopher! AI is another related topic and you are absolutely right, “not all human knowledge can be represented by semantic mark up.”

  • Vipin Kumar

    I have to say it Paul, the post you have written is very informative. Great work by you. Thank you for giving this whole insight on entity search. It is very useful.


  • Peter Hatherley

    I agree. Well structured data is absolutely vital. It helps the searcher and those who want to index better on the search engines, and we need to be doing it sooner rather than later.

    I have done an in-depth study of semantics and have developed a unique tool that outputs semantic content. This will be released commercially within 9-12 months.

  • Jenna Schultz

    Very informative! Thanks for sharing.

  • CUbRIK Project

    Hi, in the CUbRIK FP7 European research project, we are investigating and conducting experiments directly on the subjects you have so amazingly described! Research focuses on joining automatic machine intelligence to collective knowledge, from crowdsourcing, social networking and serious gaming to
    increase semantic understanding of multimedia content, starting from a
    knowledge base built on entities.
    Prototypes of practical search-based applications that inherit semantic enrichment are next to come.
    What we have consolidated so far is documented in scientific publications journal articles and formal project deliverables. Have a look at http://www.cubrikproject.eu/index.php/downloads/publications. More will be published as we are starting our 3rd year of funded research agenda.
    On behalf of the project team I welcome your opinion and advise!

    Tonina Scuderi

  • Guest

    Hello again, you can discard this: I was posting twice the same text!
    Tonina Scuderi

  • http://livingwilladvancedirective.com/ David Lemberg

    Thanks, Paul, for a wonderfully informative article. I’m reminded of early discussions of the semantic web, such as Tim Berners-Lee’s article in Scientific American – http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-semantic-web. Users have needed semantic search since 1996, so a 20-year development horizon is not too shabbby. As other posters have noted, semantic search or AIs such as Watson are not really intelligent. Yet. They can answer questions by conducting near-instantaneous search. They can link semantic objects to answer challenging Jeopardy questions. But AIs cannot do thinking as such. AIs are not generating new ideas. They may define a fitness peak, for example, or identify a strange attractor. But, again, such “thinking” is stochastic. Anyway, so ends my rant. I highly recommend “Software” and “Wetware” by the mathematician/novelist Rudy Rucker.

  • http://www.ezsolutionspk.net/ ezsolutionspk

    Nice and fresh thoughts … I really enjoyed reading it a lot.