Web 3.0 and Crowdservicing

The World Wide Web (WWW) has undergone significant evolution in the past decade. The emerging web 3.0 is characterized by the vision of achieving a balanced integration of services provided by machines and human agents. This is also the logic of ‘crowdservicing’ which has led to the creation of platforms on which new applications and even enterprises can be created, and complex, web-scale problem solving endeavors undertaken by flexibly connecting billions of loosely coupled computational agents or web services as well as human, service provider agents. In this paper, we build on research and development in the growing area of crowdsourcing to develop the concept of crowdservicing. We also present a novel crowdservicing application prototype, OntoAssist, to facilitate ontology evolution as an illustration of the concept. OntoAssist integrates the computational features of an existing search engine with the human computation provided by the crowd of users to find desirable search results

Legal crowdsourcing and relational law : what the semantic web can do for legal education

Crowdsourcing and Relational Law are interrelated concepts that can be successfully applied to the legal domain and, more specifically, to the field of legal education. 'Crowdsourcing' means 'participation of people (crowds)' and refers theoretically to the aggregated production of a common knowledge in a global data space. 'Relational law' refers to the regulatory link between Web 2.0 and 3.0, based on trust and dialogue, which emerges from the intertwining of top-down existing legal systems and bottom-up participation (the Web of People). Legal education today has a major role to play in the broad space opened up in terms of future potential of the Semantic Web. The following paper places a lens on the educational value of crowdsourcing and the relational approach to governance and law

The Value of Crowdsourcing for Complex Problems: Comparative Evidence from Software Developed By the Crowd And Professionals

Crowdsourcing is a problem solving model. In the context of complex problems, conventional theory suggests that solving complex problems is a province of professionals, that is, people with sufficient knowledge about the domain. Prior literature has indicated that the crowd, in addition to professionals, is also a great source for solving problems such as product innovation and idea generation. However, this assumption has yet to be tested. Adopting a quasi-experimental approach, this study uses a two-phase process to investigate this question. In the first phase we compare the development of a software by the crowd and professionals. In the second phase we evaluate the software developed by the crowdsourcing business model and professionals in terms of key perceived quality dimensions assessed by users of the systems. Quality is measured in terms of pragmatic quality, hedonic quality stimulation, and hedonic quality identification. Our study results suggest that there is a statistically significant difference between the software developed by a crowdsourcing business model and professionals in terms of hedonic quality stimulation and hedonic quality identification but there is no difference in terms of pragmatic quality. This research offers a first assessment of whether a crowdsourcing business model can be used to develop software with better user experience than professionallydeveloped software

Agreement and relational justice : a perspective from philosophy and sociology of law

Relationships between empirical and philosophical approaches to the law have not been always peaceful. Agreement seems the most natural way to build up and implementing regulations and justice within human-machine inter-faces (natural and artificial societies), and might help to bridge the gap between both theoretical approaches. Recent researches on relational law, relational jus-tice, crowdsourcing, regulatory systems and regulatory models are introduced. These concepts need further clarification, but they stand as political companions to more standard conceptions of law in the Semantic We