The semantic web will allow us to recombine information in ways we never thought would be possible. But how do we get all of that information in a form that all of us can use?

I was asked recently to explain how Web 2.0, the semantic web, and metadata are related to each other, and what these concepts might mean for the future of the web.

Here’s my (not overly brief) take on it.

If you haven’t heard the phrase ‘the semantic web’ before, this is what it is in a nutshell (thanks Wikipedia):

“…an evolution of the World Wide Web in which information is machine processable (rather than being only human oriented), thus permitting browsers or other software agents to find, share and combine information more easily.”

Obviously, most of the information that’s on the web today got there by being marked up in HyperText Markup Language (a.k.a. HTML). Yet HTML has been around a long time (since around 1993), and has some inherent problems.

We can all remix whatever we need to — but how?

The problem with HTML however, is that it statically describes the content on a page, as opposed to really tagging that content in a way that can be reused and recombined with other content (and metadata).

New services like Yahoo Pipes, which I’ve talked about previously, have brought the ability to recombine information to pretty much everyone who needs that recombination (but of course, it’s not without it’s problems).

There are many people who have realized that this concept of semantic interoperability is important — but how do we get all that information out there tagged with a new standard (whatever it happens to be?).

Well, one of the key ways that we can get data into this format is through the Extensible Markup Language (XML).

Basically, instead of being interwoven into the page itself, XML attaches itself to certain parts of the text so that it can be reassembled in different ways by a third party.

So what does this have to do with user-created content?

Static web pages are likely not going to go anywhere. While new standards are certainly going to evolve beyond static HTML, there are certainly some types of sites that just won’t benefit from the remixing capability that we’re talking about.

The thing with user-created content, however, is that it tends to create even more user-created content.

So as people create content in a format that is open and reusable by anyone, people are going to add on to it, reassemble it and ultimately build something new out of the pieces they are given.

So the question about what we do with the content that’s already there is really not that pressing — since there will always be a place for static content.

The importance of open standards.

This assumes of course, that all of those pieces fit together. Open metadata standards are required for all of these things to work together, and it’s tough to get people to agree on these types of things.

But ultimately, with a markup language that is independent of the text it represents, it’s possible to recombine all kinds of text and others types of information in different ways.

Ultimately, this relates to what is often called ‘Web 2.0′. Web 2.0 is more about connecting people and creating common informational spaces than it is about creating a web that assembles information.

What happens after Web 2.0?

So what might Web 3.0 look like? Well, it might look a little bit like this.

Web 3.0 could very well be a world wide web that starts to create its own content, but much more intellgently than it already does. Sound far-fetched?

If you think about it, the world wide web is creating new content all the time. The only difference is, we tell it what to create and when, and it creates when we tell it to.

The next iteration of the web could piece together content from various places in ways that are difficult to imagine in today’s context.

What if all of yours bills and your bank accounts could communicate with each other? So that your bank account would know that if you didn’t have funds in your account, to delay paying a particular bill?

I’ll wrap this up before I get into too many speculative, science-fiction-sounding examples. But I think we’d all be better off with an intelligent bank account.