I know that may sound a little awkward, a bit utopian, middle Maturana or even naive, but there is a trend that all information that is site is categorized, sorted and grouped by similar characteristics. Following this argument, I think there will come a time that will be a separate code format or file extension you go up to the network, either an image (jpg), a flash (swf), a quicktime (mov) a text (txt), a web page (html), etc. we will say that this is exactly what is there, so to speak in one language form. When this happens (and is happening), all the information in the network shall have a common denominator that will cross the information of various kinds to get mixed results, so for example, you're such a photo, the results probably suggest other similar photos (not the file name or by their category but by their similarity of structure), just as a song, video or any file above. For example, not necessarily when you search for a disc you suggest other NIN discs that group, but some films by David Fincher or David Lynch for the aesthetics, the environment and the concepts that lead these works.The concept of using labels or "tags" that indicate what type of files are we are working is a first step to enhance the similarity of documents and generate search results that suggest files with similar characteristics. When speaking of the DNA of information I mean a structure described in a simple and specific, a common language that is understandable by a system. For example, when we speak of human DNA, it can be represented by a sequence of genes (genome structure) with an established nomenclature, represented by a "3-letter words" consisting of 3 nucleoids (by way of example, ACT , CAG, TTT).Similarly I think the future of all information in the network is similar to the structure of DNA, where a picture of a skier leaping in Valle Nevado will TFA, TGA, MCC, etc. .. But the vital question is this ... What is the criterion for establishing this new language? Will the denotative characteristics (structural qualities such as shape, dimensions, etc ... that are inherent in the document in question and relate to objective)?The current trend is that the network is made up of people, with a search for experiences that allow you to identify and represent not so much abstract thinking (which is why the growth of blogs, communities, sites with feedback etc. Because it seeks dialogue, feedback generated solutions, similar to our own experiences that foster a sense of belonging). With this in mind, everything suggests that the criterion for generating a classification of information will be semantics, which represents, it seems, what is your interpretation, which generates feeling. To put it in more common terms, when you find a funny video on Youtube does not write "180 cm tall man who changes his center of gravity compared to a disruption of inertia caused by contact with an element of the nature of dimensions 20 cm and Radio 4 cm "but" idiot takes a peak with banana ". The latter search is fraught with subjectivity and probably has more hits than the first.Microsoft is already working on the concept of DNA information from their photos to "Photosynth". Brendan Dawes using "processing" generated what he calls "Cinema Redux", a sort of fingerprint of films, with information consists of a small sample of 8 x 6 pixels of different frames during the films.The idea of classifying all semantically (that is, what it means) is related to the first approaches to a concept of Web 3.0. with sites smarter, more consistent results suggesting the user, more proactive, synchronized, more unified. Web 3.0 is known as "semantic web", where the search results provide meaning.Now, understanding that the basis of DNA information in the network is based on the meanings of our archives, we have to wonder who moderates these results or simply be assigned by users? There will be some software or system to recognize the significance of what we're up here? We'll have to learn to speak a new language?If we think that these meanings will be awarded by the heads of big technology companies like Google, Microsoft, Amazon or Apple would make me question the real interests behind a search. In fact, nowadays if you open your mail from gmail (google) you will see that there are notices around that suggest you to purchase goods and services related to the contents of your mail. That scares me a little.But back to business a bit ... if we were to set a criterion and a common language, who would be awarded for this great power? We would talk all "apple semantic" or "google semantic"? Not religious myself and without any prejudice of those who are, reminds me a little of the history of the Tower of Babel, where at first all spoke one language and when they started building a tower to reach heaven, above God is collapsed and ended up speaking all different languages. I do not know if Bill Gates or Steve Jobs are gods (or demons ... jejeje) and want to speak only their language, but history has always been examples of that pride is punished in some way ...By the time the network is fed by what their users interpret relevant and assigned to their documents, something close to a virtual democracy. According to Tim Berners-Lee, the network will be as obvious as it seems obvious the web today. Hopefully never lose power over the network, as communities, as individuals, with unifying elements, as competitive differentiators.