Maybe somewhere on the way from web2.0 to web3/x I will become a Luddite who grumbles about the modern times. Most features of the extensions mentioned in this week’s readings don’t appeal to me. More mobility, location awareness, augmentation of the reality into the virtual, and extension of the “virtuality” to physical things — well, but if that means that the new web is “extending into my life”, that it is penetrative, invasive, then I won’t like it.
Now “Connects knowledge” sounds good (upper left quadrant of slide 12 of Wheeler’s presentation). But does this equate to connective knowledge as in Connectivism?
As I understand it, when it connects RDF triples, it only connects knowledge in the way jig-saw puzzle pieces are connected such that they snap in. The puzzle metaphor was used previously to illustrate the opposite of complexity (which was illustrated by the weather). And the knowledge represented in the stored propositions is all binary, true or false, and does not allow for the type of conceptual connections that follow the neural metaphor (weak and gradually strengthening). So, if knowledge is being composed of a complicated structure of such propositions, will it allow for knowledge about complex processes?
Stephen once talked about the inference engines involved here and plausibly explained the difference of this sort of knowledge from connective knowledge. As I have understood it, the former is just “snap-in” knowledge that needs to be complemented (“augmented” ?) by the latter, connective, knowledge.