Is Twitter the Semantic Web?

Saw a blog post from Alan Cann over at the University of Leicester this evening which got me thinking. His post was entitled 'Twitter drives traffic to blogs and social networks', and in it he claims that Twitter is the semantic web. He has a great poem on his site called 'The Semantic Web will not be Televised' which expresses this idea perfectly.

Although the Semantic Web (Web 3.0?) is still somewhat ill-defined and there are disagreements over exactly what it is, or what it looks like, most people agree that elements of it at least, have been with us for some time. The key presumed attributes of the semantic web are its psuedo-intelligent predictive and filtering capabilities:

Back in 1999 Sir Tim Berners-Lee declared: "I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers."

This is a grand architectural design of course, most of which is not completely accessible to the average computer user. What we do understand however, is that 'intelligent agents' in software will enable computers to filter out what we don't want and push to us what we do want, based on our previous use of search engines, network transactions, etc.

In this context, Alan Cann is probably correct because Twitter can act as a network filter - still under the control of the user, with little intelligence built into it other than the choices of the user - but never-the-less possessing a form of filtering capability beyond that of the average user. We are still some way off from truly intelligent agents that predict accurately what you want, when you want it, delivered to your current location. But Twitter is much more than the glorified e-mail system many claim it to be. Twitter is certainly a huge step toward semantic predictive filtering - it allows you to lock directly into and maintain your own personalised community of interest, where you can follow or un-follow who you wish, communicate across boundaries and push/pull information as you require it. It employes a number of simple and abbreviated filtering features such as #hashtagging, @names, RT (Retweeting) and DM (Direct messaging) which many social networking tools do not have. It is only a small step from here to automated versions.





Image source

Twitter ye not

This time yesterday I searched Twitter Groups to see if anyone had created an Edublog group I could join. I didn't find one. So I created one myself called Edubloggers. If I hadn't done so, it would only have been a matter of time before someone else did. It was very interesting to watch as people joined the group, shared their profiles and blogs, and then began to link to other like-minded people they didn't even know existed. That's the power of the social network. I have made more than 20 new friends on Twitter in the past 24 hours, and the group membership already stands at over 50 members, some of them well established and respected edubloggers.

The along comes AJ Cann to challenge the concept. Alan has created a debate and posted a motion to the effect that 'Twitter groups are unnecessary'. He writes:

Twitter groups are not necessary. The power of Twitter lies in filtering a personal network rather than in preformed groups which you do not have control over. Groups generate unnecessary noise, which is already the biggest problem with Twitter. The power to create temporary ad hoc groups (for conferences or events) already exists in Twitter via hashtags and the search function. Even if you want Twitter groups, Twitter is working on this "feature" as a top priority after stabilization, so it would be better to wait until the official implementation arrives rather than Balkanize the Twitter community with a plethora of Facebook-style groups. Twitter is not Facebook. Ladies and Gentlemen, please vote for this motion by leaving your comments below. Thank you. And yes, I was Chair of the school debating team. Wanna make something of it? ;-)

My response was as follows:

The concept behond Web 2.0 tools (and I assume you believe that Twitter is a part of this spectrum) is that all activities, including groupings, is spontaneous. All you are doing by advocating that Twitter groups are not necessary is imposing a structure upon the social web that should not be imposed. By making a rule (I know it is a proposal) that you 'shouldn't do something' you impose a hierarchical constraint. We want folksonomy not heirarchy. You are right that Twitter is not Facebook. That's why they have different spellings. But both have the same underlying principle that people can connect and communicate using them. That is exactly what Twitter groups can do - and they can boost your following very quickly because all those who group together informally (because they choose to do so) can see those who have a similar interest much more clearly. The group is not pre-formed - it continually forms itself. Don't impose rules on the social web. (Er, and fyi, I'm not the slightest bit scared of ex-chairs of school debating teams). :-D

There have been several responses to Alan's motion, but it's a little like debating whether you should take an apple or an orange to school in your lunchbox to eat before your school debate, isn't it? All social web tools have their own affordances and constraints. Not everyone subscribes to Facebook or Twitter. How many of us like Twitter Grader, or Qwitter for that matter? It's all about personal preferences, but to claim that something is 'not necessary' before it has been tested out is a little premature, I feel. And should we measure the worth of something merely by its utility? Twitter Grader may not be 'necessary', but it can be fun. That's enough of the soapbox from me. What do other people think?