Tim Berners-Lee, the father of the World Wide Web, defined the Semantic Web in 2001 as “not a separate Web but an extension of the current one, in which information is given well-defined meaning, better enabling comput- ers and people to work in cooperation” (Berners-Lee, Hendler, and Lassila 2001). The evolution of the web has gone from linking web pages in Web 1.0, to linking people in Web 2.0 (the social web), to linking data in Web 3.0, also known as the Semantic Web (Doszkocs 2010, 36). “The Semantic Web allows computers to understand the meaning of information as opposed to simply displaying information” (Morris 2011, 43). It seeks to establish bet- ter finding methods than the algorithms presently used by general-purpose search engines so that it can give more targeted answers to queries.
Research in this field is ongoing: Semantic Web techniques already oper- ate within general search engines such as Hakia and Bing, specialized search engines such as HealthMash, databases such as LexisNexis and PubMed, and library catalogs such as the one at North Carolina State University. Some of the characteristics of the Semantic Web already in place include faceted clustering in library catalogs and databases, results that show up before the user finishes typing (as with Google Instant), and the combining of vertical semantic search, federated search, and various types of content and topic clusters (as on HealthMash) (Doszkocs 2010, 42).
How will the Semantic Web interface with the Invisible Web? Ideally, the Semantic Web will reduce the number of silos of information users must access in order to obtain useful answers to their queries. As many information silos reside in the Invisible Web, searching the Semantic Web should tap databases that offer users a richer array of valuable sources. The end result is summarized by Michael A. Keller, University Librarian at
Stanford University: “Semantic Web approaches . . . offer new opportunities for addressing the traditional and prevailing problems of too many silos of content, too many disparate modes of search and access, and too little preci- sion and too much ambiguity in search results in the extreme environments of academic information resources” (Keller 2011, 11). But the job of creat- ing the ontologism, the system of relationships between words and ideas, needed to map the web is massive and only partially underway. Without this background work, the Semantic Web remains a goal in the future.
aPPs
In their now famous Wired article “The Web is Dead, Long Live the Inter- net,” Chris Anderson and Michael Wolff make the case that “for the sake of the optimized experience on mobile devices, users forgo the general- purpose browser. They use the Net, but not the Web. Fast beats flexible.” Some fee-based apps, which are in effect niche tools, are part of the Invisi- ble Web, and their use is growing exponentially to the detriment of brows- ers. It is more about getting and less about searching. An app allows users to go straight to desired sites without wasting time opening a browser and typing in a URL. Thus, as one sector of the Invisible Web becomes visible, another segment seems to move over to the invisible side. What matters is that web users look up from their specialized apps, their Google searches, or their conversations on Facebook to ask themselves whether the research tool at hand is appropriate for a particular inquiry or whether other tools should be considered. Effective search cannot limit itself to one silo, no matter what the resource, the technology, the tool used. Users must place search within an informational context and evaluate the transaction that has taken place and what still needs to be done to make it complete.
conclusion
There will always be a need for subscription databases with their struc- tured data offering access to specialized, general, and academic sources. For the near future, this content will continue to reside entirely in the Invisible Web as introduced in its traditional, more technological definition outlined
in chapter 1. On the cognitive level, the solution to insufficient awareness and use of the Invisible Web remains education. Whatever the information and however it arrives—as text or as speech, via PC or smartphone, tablet, or some yet unknown new interface—the key issue remains the same: How does the user know where the information came from and how accurate it is? Evaluation remains the key to effective information search; this holds true for visible or Invisible Web content. Information literacy—the ability to locate, use, and evaluate information—remains critical. Is the return to human intervention in search a positive phenomenon? In some cases, yes: if searching gets increasingly harder as more and more material is thrown into the mix of results, users, students, or anyone conducting searches may veer back toward seeking help from information professionals. In other cases, no: the flood of personalized tidbits could deter users from getting objective information about a topic. A coach, a mentor, a librarian will be needed to help separate the wheat from the chaff. The Invisible Web remains a mov- ing target but generally provides more specialized, appropriate sources for users. As the information world becomes more chaotic, more overwhelm- ing, it behooves students to zero in on such sources. But the ultimate lesson to be learned is to apply evaluative criteria to any source, wherever it may come from.
reFerenceS
American Library Association. 1989. Presidential Committee on Information Liter-
acy: Final Report. www.ala.org/acrl/publications/whitepapers/presidential.
Anderson, Chris, and Michael Wolff. 2010. “The Web Is Dead, Long Live the Inter- net.” Wired, September. www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/1. Arnold, Stephen E. 2010. “Is a Search Revolution Brewing?” Information Today 27,
no. 6: 20–21. Academic Search Complete.
Atagana, Michelle. 2011. “The Future of Search Is Social: Q&A with Google’s Nelson Mattos.” Memeburn, December 7. http://memeburn.com/2011/12/ the-future-of-search-is-social-qa-with-googles-nelson-mattos/.
Battelle, John. 2012. “What Might a Facebook Search Engine Look Like?” John
Battelle’s Searchblog, January 16. http://battellemedia.com/archives/2012/01/
what-might-a-facebook-search-engine-look-like.php.
Berners-Lee, Tim, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila. 2001. “The Semantic Web.”
Bing Team. 2011. “Facebook Friends Now Fueling Faster Decisions on Bing.”
Search Blog, May 16. www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/search/
archive/2011/05/16/news-announcement-may-17.aspx.
Choe, Jaywon. 2011. “My Own Private Librarian.” New York Times, November 4. www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/education/edlife/my-own-private-librarian.html. De Rosa, Cathy, Joanne Cantrell, Matthew Carlson, Peggy Gallagher, Janet Hawk, and Charlotte Sturtz. 2010. Perceptions of Libraries, 2010: Context and Commu-
nity—a Report to the OCLC Membership. Dublin, OH: OCLC.
Doszkocs, Tamas. 2010. “Semantic Search Engines Mean Well.” Online 34, no. 4: 36–42. Academic Search Complete.
Etzioni, Oren. 2011. “Search Needs a Shake-Up.” Nature 476, no. 7358: 25–26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/476025a.
Gawande, Atul. 2011. “Personal Best: Top Athletes and Singers Have Coaches: Should You?” New Yorker, October 3. www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/ 10/03/111003fa_fact_gawande.
Hearst, Marti A. 2009. Search User Interfaces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2011. “‘Natural’ Search User Interfaces.” Communications of the ACM 54, no. 11: 60–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2018396.2018414.
International Data Corporation (IDC). 2011. “IDC: More Mobile Internet Users Than Wireline Users in the U.S. by 2015.” Press release, IDC.com, September 12. www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23028711.
Keller, Michael A. 2011. “Linked Data: A Way Out of the Information Chaos and toward the Semantic Web.” EDUCAUSE Review 46, no. 4: 10–11. www.educause.edu/ero/ article/linked-data-way-out-information-chaos-and-toward-semantic-web. Lohr, Steve. 2012. “Wolfram, a Search Engine, Finds Answers Within Itself.” New
York Times, February 6. www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/technology/wolfram
-a-search-engine-finds-answers-within-itself.html.
Morris, Robin D. 2011. “Web 3.0: Implications for Online Learning.” TechTrends 55, no. 1: 42–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-011-0469-9.
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. New York: Penguin.
Sterling, Greg. 2011. “Bing Ups Ante in Social Search, Adds More Facebook ‘Likes’ to Search Results.” Search Engine Land (blog), May 16. http://searchengineland. com/bing-ups-ante-in-social-search-re-ranking-serps-with-likes-77269.
Tenopir, Carol. 2008. “Dialog Finds a New Home.” Library Journal 133, no. 14: 26. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full Text.
Worrall, JJ. 2013. “‘Monster’ Google+ Catching Up with Social Rivals.” Irish Times, July 18. www.irishtimes.com/business/sectors/technology/monster-google -catching-up-with-social-rivals-1.1466531.
- 167 -