Kingsley,
On 8/18/2011 2:25 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 8/18/11 2:03 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Kingsley,
Here are some hard numbers on integration of data benefits:
Future Integration Needs: Emerging Complex Data -
http://www.informatica.com/news_events/press_releases/Pages/08182011_aberdeen_b2b.aspx
*/Integration costs are rising/* -- As integration of external data
rises, it continues to be a labor- and cost-intensive task, with
organizations integrating external sources spending 25 percent of
their total integration budget in this area.
So I can ask a decision maker, what do you spend on integration now?
Take 25% of that figure.
Compare to X cost for integration using my software Y.
Or better yet, selling the integrated data as a service.
Data that isn't in demand to be integrated, isn't.
Technique neutral, could be SemWeb, could be third-world coding
shops, could be Watson.
Timely, useful, integrated results are all that count.
Technique wouldn't be SemWeb. It would be Data Virtualization that
leverages Semantic Web Project outputs such as:
1. Linked Data -- data homogenization (virtualization) mechanism
2. OWL -- facilitator of reasoning against the vitualized substrate.
To the target customer the experience would go something like this:
1. Install Data Virtualization product
2. Identify heterogeneous data sources and their access method --
these will typically accessible via ODBC, JDBC (if RDBMS hosted), Web
Services (SOAP based or via RESTful patterns what used to be SOA), or
URLs especially if external data sources are in the mix
3. Bind to data sources
4. Virtualize
5. Show the new levels of agility 1-4 accord across all tool capable
of consuming URLs.
What would you call such a product? At OpenLink Software we call it
OpenLink Virtuoso :-)
I would call it *no sale* if OpenLink Virtuoso + services costs more
than I am spending now.
Isn't that the pertinent question?
Patrick
Kingsley
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
On 8/18/2011 1:40 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Kingsley,
From below:
This critical value only materializes via appropriate "context
lenses". For decision makers it is always via opportunity costs.
If someone else is eating you lunch by disrupting your market you
simply have to respond. Thus, on this side of the fence its better
to focus on eating lunch rather than warning about the possibility
of doing so, or outlining how it could be done. Just do it!
I appreciate the sentiment, "Just do it!" as my close friend Jack
Park says it fairly often.
But "Just do it!" doesn't answer the question of cost/benefit.
It avoids it in favor of advocacy.
Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to
solve this problem? Then, what increase in revenue will result from
solving it?
Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why
doesn't G+ solve the problem?
Are privacy controls are a non-problem?
Your "context lenses."
True, you can market a product/service that no one has ever seen
before. Like pet rocks.
And they "just did it!"
With one important difference.
Their *doing it* did not depend upon the gratuitous efforts of
thousands if not millions of others.
Isn't that an important distinction?
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
On 8/18/2011 10:54 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
On 8/18/11 10:25 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
Kingsley,
Your characterization of "problems" is spot on:
On 8/18/2011 9:01 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
<snip>
Linked Data addresses many real world problems. The trouble is
that problems are subjective. If you have experienced a problem
it doesn't exist. If you don't understand a problem it doesn't
exist. If you don't know a problem exists then again it doesn't
exist in you context.
But you left out: The recognized "problem" must *cost more* than
the cost of addressing it.
Yes. Now in my case I assumed the above to be implicit when context
is about a solution or solutions :-)
If a solution costs more than the problem, it is a problem^n
matter. No good.
A favorable cost/benefit ratio has to be recognized by the people
being called upon to make the investment in solutions.
Always! Investment evaluation 101 for any business oriented
decision maker.
That is recognition of a favorable cost/benefit ratio by the W3C
and company is insufficient.
Yes?
Yes-ish. And here's why. Implementation cost is a tricky factor,
one typically glossed over in marketing communications that more
often than not blind side decision makers; especially those that
are extremely technically challenged. Note, when I say "technically
challenged" I am not referring to programming skills. I am
referring to basic understanding of technology as it applies to a
given domain e.g. the enterprise.
Back to the W3C and "The Semantic Web Project". In this case, the
big issue is that degree of unobtrusive delivery hasn't been a
leading factor -- bar SPARQL where its deliberate SQL proximity is
all about unobtrusive implementation and adoption. Ditto R2RML .
RDF is an example of a poorly orchestrated revolution at the syntax
level that is implicitly obtrusive at adoption and implementation
time. It is in this context I agree fully with you. There was a
misconception that RDF would be adopted like HTML, just like that.
As we can all see today, that never happened and will never
happened via revolution.
What can happen, unobtrusively, is the use and appreciation of
solutions that generate Linked Data (expressed using a variety of
syntaxes and serialized in a variety of formats). That's why we've
invested so much time in both Linked Data Middleware and DBMS
technology for ingestion, indexing, querying, and serialization.
For the umpteenth time here are three real world problems
addressed effectively by Linked Data courtesy of AWWW
(Architecture of the World Wide Web):
1. Verifiable Identifiers -- as delivered via WebID (leveraging
Trust Logic and FOAF)
2. Access Control Lists -- an application of WebID and Web Access
Control Ontology
3. Heterogeneous Data Access and Integration -- basically taking
use beyond the limits of ODBC, JDBC etc..
Let's apply the items above to some contemporary solutions that
illuminate the costs of not addressing the above:
1. G+ -- the "real name" debacle is WebID 101 re. pseudonyms,
synonyms, and anonymity
2. Facebook -- all the privacy shortcomings boil down to not
understanding the power of InterWeb scale verifiable identifiers
and access control lists
3. Twitter -- inability to turn Tweets into structured
annotations that are basically nano-memes
4. Email, Comment, Pingback SPAM -- a result of not being able to
verify identifiers
5. Precision Find -- going beyond the imprecision of Search
Engines whereby subject attribute and properties are used to
contextually discover relevant things (explicitly or
serendipitously).
The problem isn't really a shortage of solutions, far from it.
For the sake of argument only, conceding these are viable
solutions, the question is:
Do they provide more benefit than they cost?
Yes. They do, unequivocally.
If that can't be answered favorably, in hard currency (or some
other continuum of value that appeals to particular investors), no
one is going to make the investment.
Economics 101.
This critical value only materializes via appropriate "context
lenses". For decision makers it is always via opportunity costs.
If someone else is eating you lunch by disrupting your market you
simply have to respond. Thus, on this side of the fence its better
to focus on eating lunch rather than warning about the possibility
of doing so, or outlining how it could be done. Just do it!
That isn't specific to SemWeb but any solution to a problem.
Yes!
The solution has to provide a favorable cost/benefit ratio or it
won't be adopted. Or at least not widely.
Hope you are having a great day!
Patrick
--
Patrick Durusau
patr...@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog):http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage:http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau
--
Regards,
Kingsley Idehen
President& CEO
OpenLink Software
Web:http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
--
Patrick Durusau
patr...@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)
Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau