Over the past couple of days, I’ve been reading up on the Semantic Web. First, I sought out a concise definition — here’s the definition according to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C):<\/p>\n
The Semantic Web provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries. [Link<\/a>]<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Next, I asked myself: should I care about the Semantic Web? –or is it just another technology buzzword that I can ignore? Pretty quickly, I came to the conclusion that maybe I should care about the Semantic Web, because it may solve a problem I have.<\/p>\n
The problem is one you may share: the volume of information available via Web Classic has become so large that search engines like Google are getting to the point where they are no longer adequate for my purposes. A few years ago, I experienced search engines as opening a door for me; now I often experience them as frustrating bottlenecks. As time goes by, I find myself relying more and more on other methods for finding links to good information: blogs, Wikipedia, tags, etc.<\/p>\n
It looks like the Semantic Web may help address this problem I’m currently facing. One of the more interesting developments is the link between the Semantic Web and knowledge management. Knowledge management can use hi-tech tools like content management systems, online learning, wikis and blogs — but knowledge management also includes face-to-face interactions like mentoring relationships, formal training, and informal learning from peers. Considered from the point of view of knowledge management, the Semantic Web is just another tool to help manage knowledge (albeit a tool that is potentially very powerful).<\/p>\n
I’ve also started thinking about how the Semantic Web might be useful in a church setting — what problems could the Semantic Web solve for a local congregation? One of the biggest problems in most local congregations is knowledge management, because local congregations tend to be fairly isolated from one another, and from the denominational bureaucracy. If you face a problem in your local congregation, all too often you’ll probably wind up solving it on your own, even though there are lots of other congregations out there who have gone through exactly the same problem — the knowledge of how to solve your problem is out there, but it is difficult for you to access that knowledge.<\/p>\n
As a minister, a significant proportion of my work life is spent seeking out sources of knowledge. I’m the only person in my profession working in my small congregation; I don’t have the option of asking the person in the next cubicle for advice. Instead, I read books and blogs and magazines on churches, I go to workshops and take classes, I attend professional meetings, I talk to a church consultant twice a month, I have informal mentors, and so on — I find other ways to increase my stock of knowledge.<\/p>\n
However, lay leaders have a more difficult time increasing their stock of knowledge. Most lay leaders work on a part-time, volunteer basis; many have full-time jobs and\/or families that require their time and attention. Most of the lay leaders I work with do not have the time to go to workshops and classes, attend professional meetings, have a mentor, etc. They might have time to read a few articles (in either print or online publications), but that’s about it. This is why the Interconnections<\/a> newsletter for lay leaders has been so wildly successful in my denomination — it has become the primary source of church knowledge within Unitarian Universalism, because the editor, Don Skinner, presents best practices and other institutional knowledge in a concise and easily accessible format.<\/p>\n
Marc Fawzi, writing in the blog “Evolving Trends,” has been speculating on what he calls “Web 3.0”<\/a>. Fawzi speculates that Google’s dominance of the Web will be broken by the development of peer-to-peer Semantic Web engines. In another post<\/a>, Fawzi speculates that Wikipedia is actually best positioned right now to break Google’s dominance because Wikipedia has already begun to map out knowledge domains that could help structure a truly useful Semantic Web.*<\/p>\n
Applying this to the church world, imagine if the “Interconnections” newsletter utilized even more peer-to-peer interaction? What if there were a wiki component to the “Interconnections” Web site, such that the knowledge that is currently presented could be further refined over time by succeeding generations of lay leaders? Of course, realistically I don’t think that’s going to happen — at least, not within Unitarian Universalism, a denomination that has been more concerned about presenting a carefully controlled image to the outer world, than sponsoring and supporting the infrastructure for peer-to-peer interactions.<\/p>\n
What I’m hoping is that local congregations, and individuals within those congregations, figure out how to do knowledge management with or without denominational support. Working outside denominational bureaucracy would also give us the benefit of being able to interact with peers in other, related, denominations. In fact, constructing a good set of Semantic Web ontologies will only facilitate knowledge sharing across denominational lines.<\/p>\n
In spite of the fact that some folks are calling the Semantic Web “Web 3.0,” I am reluctant to call this overall concept “Church 3.0” because a network of evangelical Christians is already using that term to refer to mission work in a postmodern, globalized world.<\/p>\n
So maybe call it “Semantic Church” — a framework using Semantic Web standards to allow us to share data and knowledge across boundaries that currently keep us apart.<\/p>\n