The Semantic Web isn't inherently complex. The Semantic Web language, at its heart, is very, very simple. It's just about the relationships between things.
You affect the world by what you browse.
The people who designed the tools that make the Net run had their own ideas for the future.
Things can change so fast on the internet.
It's interesting that people throughout the existence of the web have been concerned about monopolies.
Whatever the device you use for getting your information out, it should be the same information.
Innovation is serendipity, so you don't know what people will make.
What is a Web year now, about three months? And when people can browse around, discover new things, and download them fast, when we all have agents - then Web years could slip by before human beings can notice.
It's difficult to imagine the power that you're going to have when so many different sorts of data are available.
Customers need to be given control of their own data-not being tied into a certain manufacturer so that when there are problems they are always obliged to go back to them.
In many ways, people growing up with the Web and now the Semantic Web take the power at their fingertips for granted.
Everybody who runs a Web site knows we're not assured of compatibility, and we could end up with a split.
The Google algorithm was a significant development. I've had thank-you emails from people whose lives have been saved by information on a medical website or who have found the love of their life on a dating website.
I have built a moat around myself, along with ways over that moat so that people can ask questions.
Any good software engineer will tell you that a compiler and an interpreter are interchangeable.
Web users ultimately want to get at data quickly and easily. They don't care as much about attractive sites and pretty design.
When it comes to professionalism, it makes sense to talk about being professional in IT. Standards are vital so that IT professionals can provide systems that last.
I'm very aware there are lots of other people who are just bright and working just as hard, with just the same dedication to make the world a good place.
The important thing is the diversity available on the Web.
We shouldn't build a technology to colour, or grey out, what people say. The media in general is balanced, although there are a lot of issues to be addressed that the media rightly pick up on.
I suppose it's amazing when you think how many things people get involved in that don't work.
When something is such a creative medium as the web, the limits to it are our imagination.
We need diversity of thought in the world to face the new challenges.
One of the issues of social networking silos is that they have the data and I don't.
I should be able to pick which applications I use for managing my life, I should be able to pick which content I look at, and I should be able to pick which device I use, which company I use for supplying my internet, and I'd like those to be independent choices.
I'm an optimist about humanity in general, I suppose.
We can't blame the technology when we make mistakes.
There was a time when people felt the internet was another world, but now people realise it's a tool that we use in this world.
The Web as I envisaged it, we have not seen it yet. The future is still so much bigger than the past.
The original idea of the web was that it should be a collaborative space where you can communicate through sharing information.
My own personal preference is that the consumer, the individual person should be protected because individual people and the difference between individual people and the diversity we have between people on the planet is so important.
It's amazing how quickly people on the internet can pick something up, but it's also amazing how quickly they can drop it.
I want to know if I look up a whole lot of books about some form of cancer that that's not going to get to my insurance company and I'm going to find my insurance premium is going to go up by 5% because they've figured I'm looking at those books.
I don't mind being, in the public context, referred to as the inventor of the World Wide Web. What I like is that image to be separate from private life, because celebrity damages private life.
I don't know whether machine translation will eventually get good enough to allow us to browse people's websites in different languages so you can see how they live in different countries.
The amount of control you have over somebody if you can monitor internet activity is amazing.
Any enterprise CEO really ought to be able to ask a question that involves connecting data across the organization, be able to run a company effectively, and especially to be able to respond to unexpected events. Most organizations are missing this ability to connect all the data together.
I basically wrote the code and the specs and documentation for how the client and server talked to each other.
Imagine that everything you are typing is being read by the person you are applying to for your first job. Imagine that it's all going to be seen by your parents and your grandparents and your grandchildren as well.
Data is a precious thing and will last longer than the systems themselves.
Compared even to the development of the phone or TV, the Web developed very quickly.
I'm not a fan of giving a website a simple number like an IQ rating because like people they can vary in all kinds of different ways. So I'd be interested in different organisations labelling websites in different ways.
I hope we will use the Net to cross barriers and connect cultures.
We could say we want the Web to reflect a vision of the world where everything is done democratically. To do that, we get computers to talk with each other in such a way as to promote that ideal.
Web pages are designed for people. For the Semantic Web, we need to look at existing databases.
I myself feel that it is very important that my ISP supplies internet to my house like the water company supplies water to my house. It supplies connectivity with no strings attached.
The challenge is to manage the Web in an open way-not too much bureaucracy, not subject to political or commercial pressures. The U.S. should demonstrate that it is prepared to share control with the world.
That idea of URL was the basic clue to the universality of the Web. That was the only thing I insisted upon.
One of the things I like about the computer that I use is that I can write a program on it or I can download a program on to it and run it. That's kind of important to me, and that's also kind of important to the whole future of the internet... obviously a closed platform is a serious brake on innovation.
