Facebook Open Graph: The Definitive Guide For Publishers, Users and Competitors - Page 3
Implications For the Semantic Web
One of the most exciting parts of the Facebook announcement to me personally is the possible breakthrough in semanticizing the Web. We've written previously about the Semantic Web here, and it has been a personal passion of mine. What Facebook has done has a chance to make vast parts of the consumer Web including movies, books, music, events, sports, and news semantically tagged. Publishers and websites finally have a strong incentive to mark things up and get return traffic from Facebook.
The actual protocol that Facebook suggested is very simple. To describe the object on the page, the site owner needs to specify the title, type of the object, image, url and the name of the site using simple meta tags. The format is extensible and additional tags can be added. For example, for a book a site can add an isbn number. This format leaves room for ambiguity. The goal of classic semantic markups traditionally has been to refer to entities precisely; for example adding the director to a movie, or a year to remakes. The Facebook protocol does not seem to have this.
There were lots of previous efforts to markup the Web. To name a few, RDF, microformats, Google Rich Snippets, Yahoo's Search Monkey (based on RDF and microformats), and lastly, abmeta, which was developed by me with help from Peter Mika at Yahoo. Of all these formats, Facebook's is most similar to abmeta because the markup is placed into meta tags, and is simple and human readable. This simplicity is the key to broad adoption.
So all around, this is a great chance for the Semantic Web to finally hit consumer verticals and become real.
Implications for Developers
Every new rich platform that has been rolled out in the past couple of years presented a big opportunity for developers and this one will be no exception. While we do not know exactly what sort of applications will be build on top of new Facebook, we know that they will be very powerful. This platform has the potential to give rise to to new kind of personalization and attention economy that people have been talking about for years. It has of course, a chance to majorly backfire, but I am optimistic.
This will be a gold rush for application that is likely to last for at least a year, like the last one did. It's too early to tell whether this will be a platform that survives and does not hurt is participants. However, it is very likely that the best applications built on this platform will be owned by Facebook. Still, there is a huge new opportunity here for developers and the sky is the limit.
Checkmate?
Facebook made a major chess move. It might have checkmated its competitors, or perhaps it might have to lose another piece like it lost Beacon. Whichever is the case, right now there are deep implications for Facebook and its competitors, publishers, users and the Web at large. What Facebook has announced cannot be ignored and can not be undone. Everyone needs to figure out the next steps and understand what to do.
Time will tell where we land, but my gut is that positive things will come out of this. If nothing else, let's give Facebook credit for innovation and re-imagination the Web.
Share
Facebook
Comments
Subscribe to comments for this post OR Subscribe to comments for all ReadWriteWeb posts
Great work Alex, minor grammar/typo "over entire Web"
Really, really great summation. We are now entering the era of the hyper-mediated web, with FB as the ultimate broker between content producer and consumer. We are headed towards the tyranny of the social graph.
Very good article-puts it all into perspective. Facebook has further revolutionized the marketing and advertising industry with Open Graph. It is exciting and scary at the same time..
Great article, except they're not really asking, are they? The features are all explicitly opt-in, so users are being told their privacy will be traded for them in exchange for site personalization. There's no asking going on.
Marketing and advertising people like Nick above are really the only ones excited about this.
Great summary! My concern with Facebook's current implementation of its semantic protocol (Open Graph) is that it only allows tagging of objects. The RDFa standard includes the ability to define relationships to objects.
For example, a review of the movie Losers technically should not be tagged as an Open Graph object of the type "movie."
In RDFa, the review could be tagged with the type "review" and then defined to have a relationship ("about") with the movie "Losers." Google actually created an example for webmasters.
This all might seem like a nitpicky ultra-meta concern, but imagine if each Loser photograph could be tagged as an image about the movie, each write-up tagged as a review about the movie, each real-life promotion tagged as an event about the movie. In that scenario, my friends could "like" individual items and an app (and/or Facebook) could pull it all together, but maybe displaying only the three pictures that were voted most popular by my friends. The reviews that my friends recommended would float to the top, and I could see which of my friends recommended them.
That, to me, is the part of the dream of the semantic web that has been floating around for years. I don't see the current version of Open Graph as fulfilling that dream, but I'm hopeful that they are working toward that same vision.
It sounds like it might deliver more connections than I want to process. I started using Facebook for some professional connections. Then I shifted more of my business connections to Twitter. Then when Twitter provided lists, I organized many of the people I follow into lists. I have time to check one particular list several times a day. I have four other lists I get to perhaps once a week. I have 25 other lists I never look at because there isn't time.
The more information Facebook wants to provide, the less I will look at it. I'll either ignore most of my Facebook contacts, or I'll start dropping some of them. Already I have removed myself from some of the Facebook pages/interests I had indicated because I don't want to be publicly associated with what had been very casual associations on my part. And even what I have left up (like my tastes in music) aren't areas I want to know more about. Sure I like the Beatles, but please don't keep me in the loop with everyone else who likes the Beatles. A lot of the stuff we like on Facebook is fun, but not very important. If we have to be accountable for it, it's time to delete it.
In other words, the more Facebook wants to expand my online network, the more I will seek out a very small network that I really care about.
This had to come when I was almost certain to move away from FB for its policy strategy. Being the Internet development field, this announcement almost makes it impossible for me to take that decision now. Monopoly is so bad!
Good article. Would be nice if you had the option for displaying it all on a single page.
Fascinating and a bit scary. I've just created a Facebook group to try collect some people who are concerned about where this can take us. It's named "Should we dislike the Like button?" (for now at least). Please feel invited to join: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=120144051331674
Buen artículo. Sería agradable si usted tenía la opción para mostrar todo en una sola página
Alex
Great write up !!!!
The issue for me is that FB is a closed silo and will continue to be closed....the "open" graph is not open....you have to be a member of FB to use it....so its not "open"......I come from a time where "Open" had a meaning that was not bent and shaped by companies....For me "Open" means that no company "Owns" either end the process....In the case the the FB Graph.....(Note I m calling it the FB graph as this is what it is.....) FB owns the entier process....Its interesting to note how times have changed in my opinion for the worse....At one time Microsoft attempted to do the same thing that FB is attempting to do....and then developers and the tech "community" were up in arms....Why would we allow a company like MS take control of our identities and the internet ? Well then we said that we would not allow this and it did not happen.....I think that some the reason that FB has been able to continue to push their attempt to close off the internet is that when journalist write about or repeat the FB pr line, their is not context given....If the current coverage of the FB Closed Graph included the "Facts" concerning FB's total lack of respect for member privacy as well as for third party developers, I think that the outcome and perspectives would be very different......As for the developers inside and outside of FB that are building and extending FB's attempt to close off the internet....you are all complicit, and as a developer myself....I know that all of you know the implications of what you are doing....Mark Zuckerberg cannot close off and pollute the internet without the participation of developers......You can pretend you set silently at your computers writing code without understanding the very real implications of what you are doing....but we all know that this is not true...Developers have always been the vanguard of an open internet and we need to continue with this fight..........As developers we have allowed a company with the track record of zealous tyrannical dictator to steal a "standard" that should be owned by the internet community at large...There is no magic in what the litter dictator is proposing.....A group of developers could and should create a truly open graph so that any one can create and consume the data....The sad and horrible fact is that instead of doing this the very developers that have been entrusted to keep the internet open have created the tools that will be used to close it off....
http://www.factoetum.com/factoetum/List_of_Technology_Icons
Hi Alex,
Excellent article, as usual. And as usual I agree with you: this is a great move, and one that kicks off a space race towards the semantic web.
As I think we both have been saying for a long time (excuse me for putting words in your mouth if I do), it was doubtful that the official Linked Data technologies would ever enable that semantic web. It is too complex and too open, with the classic "tragedy of the commons" problem, meaning it's hard to see who can make money from it beyond researchers.
On the other hand, it has provided (some) useful experimentation and concepts, and new markup languages were born from its shortcomings, like the ones you worked on. It's good to see that FB has learnt from it and embraced what are perhaps the most viable ideas.
I blogged previously that the semantic web would only occur once it creates proprietary pockets that enable commercially profitable activities. Beyond limited subscription and taxpayer-funded models, advertising is likely to be the big income source, as this move shows.
A few other thoughts and a question:
- I agree with the excellent analysis of Suzanne Lainson above, who commented that there is a risk of collecting "too much information". As always with the semantic web, complexity and signal-to-noise ratio are the big issues.
- Beyond the simple feedback loops, FB's next step could be to enable better sharing of content across sites. For example, via my FB profile, it could allow me to automatically post this comment on my blog as well as RWW.
- How does that affect what you are doing at Glue? Do you see that as a complementing or a competitive move (honestly)?
Here's my twitter version of what I was saying:
The more Facebook tries to tell me every like of every person I am connected with, the fewer people I will have time to be connected to.
A lot of the "likes" many of us have aren't IMPORTANT likes. So Facebook, let's not read too much into any of them.
It's really much simpler: FB just wants to distract you from their doing whatever they wish with your information, trying to assume zero responsibility for it, and somehow believing they can do it with a "like" button, which is no different than a "fan" button. It's not open, it's not semantic, but it is total BS.
This statement in the article, "Publishers and users don't have a choice as to where to store the data. It is going to Facebook and Facebook alone. Perhaps there is a way to rework the system in a way that fixes that. We will look forward to see how this unfolds." seems pretty naive to me.
If Facebook can own that information, why would they rework the system? They need to make money. That's the part that this article doesn't really address. Facebook is a company and companies need to generate revenue to continue to exist. They have very little (if any) incentive to open this data up-it's the only path to profit. Personally, I'm not comfortable with that and will refrain from giving them any of that information.
Posted by: evoljen.myopenid.com
|
April 24, 2010 4:43 PM
Wouldn't Facebook RDF tag can easily be abused like what happened to the HTML Meta Keyword tag? Can it really work?
Some interesting points here - looks like the kind of information that marketers are going to be pretty interested in - what films I like, what food I like, how many of my friends like the same thing....
FB will be holding some pretty valuable, targetted info about me!
Many Thanks,
Darren.
Thank you Alex for this thorough and timely article.
I was pleased to add a link to this article to a tutorial I built with screen shots on how to opt-out from Facebook Personalization and block specific applications.
http://asklindasherman.com/opt-out-instant-personalization-and-block-maf
Posted by: lindasherman.myopenid.com
|
April 25, 2010 2:26 PM
Thank you for this in-depth article. I am hoping to add the like button to my wp blog and wish there was a plug-in similar to facebook share button. If you hear of one, please share the news.
Thank you.
http://twitter.com/JulieSpira
"The missing bit is that Facebook appears to be the only repository of data in this equation - and that makes the whole offering seriously closed".
I would not agree with this point. If you look at the Open Graph API specs and policies, it is clear that in principle developers are permitted access, permanent storage and re-purposing (within limits) of properly authenticated Facebook user data - acquired, via those APIs. Of course it is very unlikely that Facebook would permit a giant of its own stature to suck its entire core asset into one application repository into millions of that competitor's users' web hooks. Yet given its recent strategy announcements, it is also hard to imagine Facebook trying hard to prevent its users from accessing their own information through a plethora of existing or new third-party applications. In aggregate these third-parties might well replicate the majority of Facebook's graph data - and much else besides. Of course, principle is not practice. It remains to be seen whether Facebook's apparent new maturity will prevail or will control-freakery will be the future of these APIs.
For those who want to understand where Facebook is and is going, this is a Truly brilliant article.
S
As usual with you, a truly excellent article.
One thing I haven't seen in it is the way this wealth of information, all stored at Facebook, will also change the competitive balances between service providers.
If I "like" movies at imdb, property of Amazon, of course it is natural that Amazon will use this information to present me with personalized recommendations for DVDs.
But this information will be stored on my profile, hence iTunes will be able to access it, or Netflix, or any other movie provider, and they too, will be able to recommend me products, based on what I have "liked" on Amazon properties.
It means that every company having an access to the profiles repository (aka Facebook), will be able to leverage the popularity and audience of every other company in the same (or in a related) field that also has implemented the Facebook plugins for recommendation/targeting purposes.
Does that mean that small providers gain back some power when fighting with web giants? Does that mean that a big chunk of CRM is now centralized on Facebook, and shared between providers? If so, is it one less asset to differentiate versus competitors?
What are your thoughts?
Eric
Impressive. nice work!
Great article. Re abmeta, are there plans to extend the number of Types beyond the short list I see on http://abmeta.org/?
Alex, great article, good round up of the implications of *Facebook Like* for everyone.
FaceBook is being to discover what is RDF but with a poor and dummy implementation.
Just an other way to explore home some basic boxes can make money via a trick named Open Graph
Next year, may be they will begin to understand XML Schema and discover the right way to use name spaces
@24 abmeta is extensible, you can add other types. which ones where you thinking about?
@22 theoretically it should mean that best algorithm wins, but in reality, I am not sure.
I always thought it was the government I should fear for Big Brother. Know I know the truth!!!! And the truth has NOT set me free but has made me a slave to the marketeers.
great article, alex; good thread. a little late to the party on this one, but a coupla comments:
1. it seems to me that the biggest problem with the semantic markup is, to your point, the ambiguity inherent in the implementation. we still won't be able to get a first-order object at the conceptual level, right? i.e. an OG entry is really object (title, type, etc.) PLUS owner/location (URL). therefore, Susie is a fan of _The Godfather_ at IMDB or Flixster or GetGlue.
2. the feed algo is the new pagerank. otherwise, the level of noise will be too much, to suzanne's point above. and, while gaming that algo was app devs' bread & butter, it'll become that much more important now. facebook's continued relevance will depend largely upon their ability to keep the graph relevant. anecdotally, i've noticed and heard from friends, that as the data in my feed (friends, likes) goes from huge to massive, the feed has gotten less interesting. fb has a chance to Win because they have the traffic. if people start to bail, this will all go away much faster than b/c of privacy concerns.
3. openlike would be awesome. but, like so many open protocols before it, in order for it to work, someone(s) with traction will need to push it. hopefully MS, google, apple, and twitter all get together and make it happen. until then, i'm developing for OG and FB. the there is there.
Well, get ready to be "targeted", in a much more aggressive and tailored way! The only reason they intend to implement this is to generate money. I also predict that once people get used to it they'll start charging membership fee's. I cannot be 100% sure, but recently i thought i saw a page stating, "We refuse to pay $14.99 for Facebook", yet as i stated i cannot be sure. It seemed to me it was something to do with refusing to ever pay a membership fee of some kind.
Let's face it folks, it's the same old bottom line, money, money, money and more money, is all they are doing it for and i agree with those who mentioned that the web will become, "closed", rather than remain open as it has been. Facebook, Twitter & all the rest like them have simply found a way around this &those who are in the position to keep the web (internet) free & open, have fallen for it hook, line & sinker, along with all the users who hopefully won't find this out when it is too late to turn it all around again! I realize i am talking as if it's already been fully implemented and we are all on the precipice but i do this for good reason. i hope to get people looking ahead somewhat, so we can all decide early on to at least be weary. let's decide to take into consideration the what, when and if etc....
I am wondering what will be the implications for eCommerce recommendation engines. Will they become obsolete?
Firstly, I have to thank you for this deep analysis.
In my opinion, privacy issues will be problem soon with these features. Even the avarage users will start to understand the avaliablity of their informations. Facebook can work this out if they can handle the privacy issues right.
Also I agree, It is also a lot of scary, while we are in the information age, giving all the rights of our likes and dislikes to one company. It is too much.
I think we need to wait and see what will be the competitors' responses to understand the way ahead.
It seems like the xauth, if the internet becomes such a world, the facebook would be the god of the world, he know everything about us, and they analyse every person by the seematic web!
This brilliant article as Facebook is one most social service website, and it is used by many people in all over the world. Who are using facebook they will surely happy after reading this article. In facebook i think we can do it with a "like" button, which is no different than a "fan" button. I feel Facebook users will enjoy the personalization aspects of the new platform.
Superb analysis of the latest Facebook moves and very interesting insights into semantic web, though would love to read your thoughts about how this will influence future search results if a FB/Bing deal will materialize...
I agree with many of you above that privacy concerns and Facebook controlling the web are going to increase at a rapid pace as a result of these changes. I loved this post/article so much I elaborated on the changes in the context of content marketing implications. Let me know what you think!
http://priorityresults.com/blog/facebook-changes-and-the-impact-on-content-marketing/
Very impressive content. Really gvae insight on where Facebook is headed.
Is FOG (Facebook Open Graph) something like a pie chart that users can review & evaluate for themselves? or just a facebook term for the technology they recently rolled out?
I had tagged this article as "to read later" - and well it was worth it. Facebook is making its revolution - whether we like it or not, we won't be able to ignore it !
Thanks Mr Iskold.
I honestly feel a little strange about having my friends on Facebook know so much about me through a website. I realise that by putting myself onto Facebook, I've already opened up some privacy issues, but I don't feel that this is going to bring friends closer - it feels like a 'big brother' way of finding out what's going on without ever really needing to speak to that person.
The problem I'm worried about now is that Facebook may be overextending what it thinks is its capability of reach. If they expand too many new features too quickly, it will turn off many users and leave the door open for a social networking alternative to take its place.
To add to my point before, I would definitely use these new features and don't think they'd detract from the overall experience. However, I hope they don't release a new one every week!
I'm already solidly in the facebook camp, ready for what they have to throw at me.
While some people may like this personalization, its driving many others away. Of course I recognize that Facebook needs to make money, but concnetrating this much information about anyone under one companies control is never good. I do my best to bypass this by watching my privacy settings on Facebook closely and using seperate emails addresses for Facebook and other sites.
I have to agree with fake iEdge, i'm in the facebook camp too - its worked well for me (apart from a few security issues) but lets face it, they were at the bottom of the list anyway and if you are a advertising agency or like my company a web design agency based in Bournemouth its part of your career to keep up with these things and the changes that are likely coming up in the next hour day week.
"...since del.icio.us pioneered Web 2.0 back in 2004..." What happened to mention of Tim Berners Lee's original vision, or Ward Cunningham's first implementation of a wiki in 1994? Come on RWW you (should) know better.....