I think we're looking at the comparisons from different
points of view, and valuing functionality differently. I agree
with most of what you write, and would agree that in its present
incarnation, Siri isn't that interesting an application.
I'd interpreted "Google making a mockery of Siri" to refer to
the core underlying technology. I still don't think that's accurate,
but agree with most of the below.
Okay, so we converge. You are correct about us traveling from
different start points to the same conclusion: Siri shouldn't be in
a position when Google runs rings around it. This is only the case
because Apple has clearly made strategic decisions (Apple-style)
that have (as you state) lobotomized Siri :-)
Ok, let me see if I've understood you - so you
provide 3 links comparing the search functionality
of Siri to the search functionality of Google
Search, where Google ... unsurprisingly performs
better. What exactly does this prove? To me it hints
at non-understanding of what Siri's primary
application is.
Sorry, but that's an incorrect assessment. I am not knew
(in any way) to Siri.
What's more confusing is that in the
"apples-to-apples" comparison, you suggest that
Watson, a deep QA system that is aimed at Fortune
500 company budgets is the appropriate comparison to
a smart phone app that you used to be able to
download for $0.99. This is an
apples-to-apples comparison???
You asked about LOD (a constellation of data sources) in
comparison to Siri (an application). Watson made/makes us
of LOD. Siri's use is a mystery. My fundamental issue is
that Siri (if it was more loosely coupled) should be able
to enrich its knowledge via access to knowledgebases from
subject matter experts. That's what you get from Linked
Data and the LOD cloud. The loosely coupling is implicit
by virtue of URIs, entity relationship semantics, and
inference etc..
A couple of points...
First, I think it's become clear that Apple has
lobotomized Siri.
Yes, and that's my fundamental point!
There are a variety of articles that attest to
this, and the fact that some of the key developers
of the Siri technology have left Apple seems to
suggest there may have been a significant warping of
that technology.
That said, I think it's important to emphasize
that it's main functionality has never been search,
but to perform transactions.
I never claimed that. It is supposed to provide answers to
questions via a voice interface.
And it does (did) so, but really interpreting the
transaction components of target websites / services
in a machine-readable way, rolling it all out in one
app... I think this is something that we often
forget, and I'm grateful for John Sowa and Ronald
Stamper for bringing semiotics back into the
picture. It really helps clarify a lot of the
confusion that arises from simply thinking of
semantics divorced from pragmatics...
Yes.
In any event, from my perspective, Siri comes a
lot closer to the original SW vision of making a lot
of the human web, machine readable.
It's a poor demo of what's actually possible today. If it
used what was possible today it wouldn't exit out to Web
searches across Wikipedia. It would be able to perform the
kind of disambiguation that would flip the script (Judo
style) on Google, but that isn't the case due to Apple's
choices.
They were able to use structured data where it
was provided, otherwise they did the hard work of
analyzing what was available at a given site /
service, curating the information and mapping it to
their domain and transactional ontologies.
That's where the like for like comparison comes in with
Watson. They did that too, but made smarter use of the LOD
cloud datasets.
In the end, the Siri team chose to wall-off
their interpretation, which imo is a business
decision that we can argue about, though it
certainly gave them a first mover advantage (and led
to the founding team earning a nice $250M payout)...
Remember, wealth isn't the basis of worth to me. They
build a silo that's imploded, predictably.
With regard to your specific comparisons ---
well, Siri is not intended as primarily a search
tool.
And what is Google then?
It was developed to be a transactional tool, and
I don't see how Google Search performing better than
Siri proves anything.
It proves that Google (partial Semantic Web exploitation)
can easily trump Siri (which claims to be a Semantic Web
exploitation showcase). If Siri implemented their system
more like Watson, they wouldn't be the case.
The Androi-Siri videso and page you link to,
simply shows the testers comparing the performance
of the two apps based on a variety of search based
questions (many of which are outside of the Siri
domain, where it degrades to search)...
Performance and Scalability are features. They are
integral components of Google's competitive advantage.
Yes, and the tragedy of
Siri is that lightweight
semantics applied to
unstructured data runs rings
around it, as demonstrated by
Google.
Look, if the Siri folks (many who
actually know better) had
implemented this solution with a
little more selflessness they
would be running rings around
Google today. You wouldn't have
Google making a mockery of Siri on
its own home turf.
Might you please qualify this? It seems to
me that Siri (at least the pre-Apple
version), was actually doing a lot
of what the Semantic Web still aspires...
No it doesn't. The Semantic Web isn't about
silo applications. It's all about the Web and
the addition of entity relationship semantics
to the mesh of content constitutes the Web. If
Siri was even marginally close to the essence
of the Semantic Web vision it would have loose
coupling to data sources.
Loose coupling to semantically rich data
sources data sources on the Web is how Siri
would have protected itself from what's
happening right now i.e., Google runs rings
around it, playfully.
In search? Yet that is not where its prime
competency is... I fail to see the relevance.
That they didn't
expose their own methods via open
standards, is a business decision, but i
don't think that's their "downfall" (if we
can even call it that). It is true that
Apple to a large extent lobotomized Siri,
but I can't make head or tails of your
claims.
Siri is like a human being today that doesn't
have the ability to access new knowledge from
subject matter experts. It just knows what it
knows and its sources are mysteriously
limited.
Since it was initially developed to perform
transactions on behalf of people, it has a very
carefully selected and curated set of
competencies, since trust is an absolute must in
this domain. When Apple bought the technology,
they certainly curtailed its abilities while
simultaneously marketed it with a lot of smoke
and hype.
In the end, it seems that most of the reviews
are fundamentally not understanding what the
technology is about.
In what ways is Google making a
"mockery" of Siri?
There are many videos demonstrating that
[1][2][3].
I don't think a single one demonstrates that.
It only does so if you misunderstand the intent
of the technology. It does show that Google
performs better on search though...
Google has a virtuous cycle the works well for
its goals. It isn't pure, but it is superior
to Apples' approach.
Ok, on this point I agree. Apple has
certainly warped Siri.
Is there a single SemWeb or LOD
project that comes close to even a
fraction of Siri's functionality? C.f:
Compare like with like. Maybe you mean: is
there a similar smart agent that leverages the
LOD cloud that one could compare with Siri. My
basic answer: IBM Watson [4].
How is this a fair comparison? A technology
aimed at companies with budgets in the millions
vs an app aimed at individuals with a budget of
$0.99
