Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
Hi, On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com wrote: Either Linked Data ecosystem or linked data Ecosystem is a dangerously flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't improve MeSH by flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a directed graph) is risks the creation of a new irreconcilable taxonomy. For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a not very practical way to chill wine. A URI isn't a directed graph. You can use them to build one by making statements though. Setting aside any copyright issues, the CAS identifiers are useful Natural Keys [1]. As they're well deployed, using them to create URIs [2] is sensible as it simplifies the process of linking between datasets [3]. To answer Patrick's question, to help bridging between systems that only use the original literal version, rather than the URIs, then we should ensure that the literal keys are included in the data [4]. These are well deployed patterns and, from my experience, make it really simple and easy to bridge and link between different datasets and systems. Cheers, L. [1]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/natural-keys.html [2]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/patterned-uris.html [3]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/shared-keys.html [4]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/literal-keys.html -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Mobile: 07850 928381 http://kasabi.com http://talis.com Talis Systems Ltd 43 Temple Row Birmingham B2 5LS
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds leigh.do...@talis.com wrote: Hi, On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com wrote: Either Linked Data ecosystem or linked data Ecosystem is a dangerously flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't improve MeSH by flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a directed graph) is risks the creation of a new irreconcilable taxonomy. For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a not very practical way to chill wine. A URI isn't a directed graph. You can use them to build one by making statements though. Setting aside any copyright issues, the CAS identifiers are useful Natural Keys [1]. As they're well deployed, using them to create URIs [2] is sensible Hi Leigh, Right. Unfortunately it is also illegal :/ Regards, Dave as it simplifies the process of linking between datasets [3]. To answer Patrick's question, to help bridging between systems that only use the original literal version, rather than the URIs, then we should ensure that the literal keys are included in the data [4]. These are well deployed patterns and, from my experience, make it really simple and easy to bridge and link between different datasets and systems. Cheers, L. [1]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/natural-keys.html [2]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/patterned-uris.html [3]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/shared-keys.html [4]. http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/literal-keys.html -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Mobile: 07850 928381 http://kasabi.com http://talis.com Talis Systems Ltd 43 Temple Row Birmingham B2 5LS
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
Hi, On 24 August 2011 15:40, David Wood da...@3roundstones.com wrote: On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds leigh.do...@talis.com wrote: Hi, On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com wrote: Either Linked Data ecosystem or linked data Ecosystem is a dangerously flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't improve MeSH by flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a directed graph) is risks the creation of a new irreconcilable taxonomy. For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a not very practical way to chill wine. A URI isn't a directed graph. You can use them to build one by making statements though. Setting aside any copyright issues, the CAS identifiers are useful Natural Keys [1]. As they're well deployed, using them to create URIs [2] is sensible Hi Leigh, Right. Unfortunately it is also illegal :/ Yes, I read the first part of the thread! I was merely pointing out the useful patterns for projecting identifiers into URIs. Cheers, L. -- Leigh Dodds Programme Manager, Talis Platform Mobile: 07850 928381 http://kasabi.com http://talis.com Talis Systems Ltd 43 Temple Row Birmingham B2 5LS
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
On 24 Aug 2011, at 15:40, David Wood wrote: On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds leigh.do...@talis.com wrote: Hi, On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com wrote: Either Linked Data ecosystem or linked data Ecosystem is a dangerously flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't improve MeSH by flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a directed graph) is risks the creation of a new irreconcilable taxonomy. For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a not very practical way to chill wine. A URI isn't a directed graph. You can use them to build one by making statements though. Setting aside any copyright issues, the CAS identifiers are useful Natural Keys [1]. As they're well deployed, using them to create URIs [2] is sensible Hi Leigh, Right. Unfortunately it is also illegal :/ For people like me who haven't paid attention, and were taken aback by that: i. A User or Organization may include, without a license and without paying a fee, up to 10,000 CAS Registry Numbers or CASRNs in a catalog, web site, or other product for which there is no charge. *The following attribution should be referenced or appear with the use of each CASRN: CAS Registry Number is a Registered Trademark of the American Chemical Society* [1] So up to 10,000 is ok, but will include 10,000 attributions. Damian [1] http://www.cas.org/legal/infopolicy.html#authorized
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
On Aug 24, 2011, at 8:01, Damian Steer d.st...@bristol.ac.uk wrote: On 24 Aug 2011, at 15:40, David Wood wrote: On Aug 24, 2011, at 2:44, Leigh Dodds leigh.do...@talis.com wrote: Hi, On 23 August 2011 15:17, Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com wrote: Either Linked Data ecosystem or linked data Ecosystem is a dangerously flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't improve MeSH by flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a directed graph) is risks the creation of a new irreconcilable taxonomy. For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a not very practical way to chill wine. A URI isn't a directed graph. You can use them to build one by making statements though. Setting aside any copyright issues, the CAS identifiers are useful Natural Keys [1]. As they're well deployed, using them to create URIs [2] is sensible Hi Leigh, Right. Unfortunately it is also illegal :/ For people like me who haven't paid attention, and were taken aback by that: i. A User or Organization may include, without a license and without paying a fee, up to 10,000 CAS Registry Numbers or CASRNs in a catalog, web site, or other product for which there is no charge. *The following attribution should be referenced or appear with the use of each CASRN: CAS Registry Number is a Registered Trademark of the American Chemical Society* [1] So up to 10,000 is ok, but will include 10,000 attributions. Thanks. For what it is worth, the US EPA currently uses about 100,000. Regards, Dave Damian [1] http://www.cas.org/legal/infopolicy.html#authorized
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
David, On 8/22/2011 9:55 PM, David Booth wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: [ . . . ] The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so years. That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded. BTW, your objection is that non-licensed systems cannot use CAS identifiers? Are these commercial systems that are charging their customers? Why would you think such systems should be able to take information created by others? Using the information associated with an identifier is one thing; using the identifier itself is another. I'm sure the CAS numbers have added non-trivial value that should not be ignored. But their business model needs to change. It is ludicrous in this web era to prohibit the use of the identifiers themselves. If there is one principle we have learned from the web, it is enormous value and importance of freely usable universal identifiers. URIs rule! http://urisrule.org/ :) Well, I won't take the bait on URIs, ;-), but will note that re-use of identifiers of a sort was addressed quite a few years ago. See: /*Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.*/, 499 U.S. 340 (1991) or follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural The circumstances with CAS numbers is slightly different because to get access to the full set of CAS numbers I suspect you have to sign a licensing agreement on re-use, which makes it a matter of *contract* law and not copyright. Perhaps they should increase the limits beyond 10,000 identifiers but the only people who want the whole monty as it were are potential commercial competitors. The people who publish the periodical Brain for example at $10,000 a year. Why should I want the complete set of identifiers to be freely available to help them? Personally I think given the head start that the CAS maintainers have on the literature, etc., that different models for use of the identifiers might suit their purposes just as well. Universal identifiers change over time and my concern is with the least semantic friction and not as much with how we get there. 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
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
This is an important discussion that (I believe) foreshadows how canonical identifiers are managed moving forward. Both CAS and DUNS numbers are a good example. Consider the challenge of linking EPA data; it's easy to create a list of toxic chemicals that are common across many EPA datasets. Based on those chemical names, its possible to further find (in most cases) references in DBPedia and other sources, such as PubChem: * ACETALDEHYDE * http://dbpedia.org/page/Acetaldehyde * http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=177 * etc... Now, add to this a sensible agency-rooted URI design and a DBPedia-like infrastructure and one has a very powerful hub that strengthens the Linked Data ecosystem. It would arguably be stronger if CAS identifiers were also (somehow) included, but even the bits of linking shown above change the value proposition of traditional proprietary naming schemes... John PS: At TWC we are about to go live with a registry called Instance Hub that will demonstrate the association of agency-based URI schemes --- think EPA, HHS, DOE, USDA, etc --- with instance data over which the agency has some authority or interest...More very soon! On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote: David, On 8/22/2011 9:55 PM, David Booth wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: [ . . . ] The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so years. That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded. BTW, your objection is that non-licensed systems cannot use CAS identifiers? Are these commercial systems that are charging their customers? Why would you think such systems should be able to take information created by others? Using the information associated with an identifier is one thing; using the identifier itself is another. I'm sure the CAS numbers have added non-trivial value that should not be ignored. But their business model needs to change. It is ludicrous in this web era to prohibit the use of the identifiers themselves. If there is one principle we have learned from the web, it is enormous value and importance of freely usable universal identifiers. URIs rule! http://urisrule.org/ :) Well, I won't take the bait on URIs, ;-), but will note that re-use of identifiers of a sort was addressed quite a few years ago. See: Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) or follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural The circumstances with CAS numbers is slightly different because to get access to the full set of CAS numbers I suspect you have to sign a licensing agreement on re-use, which makes it a matter of *contract* law and not copyright. Perhaps they should increase the limits beyond 10,000 identifiers but the only people who want the whole monty as it were are potential commercial competitors. The people who publish the periodical Brain for example at $10,000 a year. Why should I want the complete set of identifiers to be freely available to help them? Personally I think given the head start that the CAS maintainers have on the literature, etc., that different models for use of the identifiers might suit their purposes just as well. Universal identifiers change over time and my concern is with the least semantic friction and not as much with how we get there. 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 -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. http://bitwacker.com olyerick...@gmail.com Twitter: @olyerickson Skype: @olyerickson
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
John On 8/23/2011 9:05 AM, John Erickson wrote: This is an important discussion that (I believe) foreshadows how canonical identifiers are managed moving forward. Both CAS and DUNS numbers are a good example. Consider the challenge of linking EPA data; it's easy to create a list of toxic chemicals that are common across many EPA datasets. Based on those chemical names, its possible to further find (in most cases) references in DBPedia and other sources, such as PubChem: * ACETALDEHYDE * http://dbpedia.org/page/Acetaldehyde * http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=177 * etc... Now, add to this a sensible agency-rooted URI design and a DBPedia-like infrastructure and one has a very powerful hub that strengthens the Linked Data ecosystem. It would arguably be stronger if CAS identifiers were also (somehow) included, but even the bits of linking shown above change the value proposition of traditional proprietary naming schemes... Quite so and I did not mean to imply otherwise. Yes, gathering government agency URI identifiers for toxic chemicals is a value-add proposition. I am curious if you find that different offices within agencies use the same URIs? Or did they have other identifiers in their records prior to the URIs? That is will the URIs map to the identifiers used in EPA datasets for example? Despite its obvious value, I don't agree that the project change[s] the value proposition of traditional proprietary naming schemes... Mostly because it does not address the *prior* use of other identifiers in the published literature. However convenient it may be to pretend that we are starting off fresh, in fact we are not, in any information system. The fact remains that even if we switched (miraculously) today to all new URI identifiers, we will be accessing literature using prior identifiers for a very long time. I suspect hundreds of years. BTW, who bridges between the new URI schemes and the CAS identifiers? For searching traditional literature? John PS: At TWC we are about to go live with a registry called Instance Hub that will demonstrate the association of agency-based URI schemes --- think EPA, HHS, DOE, USDA, etc --- with instance data over which the agency has some authority or interest...More very soon! Looking forward to it! Hope you are having a great day! Patrick On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Patrick Durusaupatr...@durusau.net wrote: David, On 8/22/2011 9:55 PM, David Booth wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: [ . . . ] The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so years. That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded. BTW, your objection is that non-licensed systems cannot use CAS identifiers? Are these commercial systems that are charging their customers? Why would you think such systems should be able to take information created by others? Using the information associated with an identifier is one thing; using the identifier itself is another. I'm sure the CAS numbers have added non-trivial value that should not be ignored. But their business model needs to change. It is ludicrous in this web era to prohibit the use of the identifiers themselves. If there is one principle we have learned from the web, it is enormous value and importance of freely usable universal identifiers. URIs rule! http://urisrule.org/ :) Well, I won't take the bait on URIs, ;-), but will note that re-use of identifiers of a sort was addressed quite a few years ago. See: Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) or follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural The circumstances with CAS numbers is slightly different because to get access to the full set of CAS numbers I suspect you have to sign a licensing agreement on re-use, which makes it a matter of *contract* law and not copyright. Perhaps they should increase the limits beyond 10,000 identifiers but the only people who want the whole monty as it were are potential commercial competitors. The people who publish the periodical Brain for example at $10,000 a year. Why should I want the complete set of identifiers to be freely available to help them? Personally I think given the head start that the CAS maintainers have on the literature, etc., that different models for use of the identifiers might suit their purposes just as well. Universal identifiers change over time and my concern is with the least semantic friction and not as much with how we get there. 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
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
Either Linked Data ecosystem or linked data Ecosystem is a dangerously flawed paradigm, IMHO. You don't improve MeSH by flattening it, for example, it is what it is. Since CAS numbers are not a directed graph, an algorithmic transform to a URI (which *is* a directed graph) is risks the creation of a new irreconcilable taxonomy. For example, Nitrogen is ok to breathe and liquid Nitrogen is a not very practical way to chill wine. Just my 2 cents. --- On Tue, 8/23/11, John Erickson olyerick...@gmail.com wrote: From: John Erickson olyerick...@gmail.com Subject: Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW) To: public-lod@w3.org Date: Tuesday, August 23, 2011, 8:05 AM This is an important discussion that (I believe) foreshadows how canonical identifiers are managed moving forward. Both CAS and DUNS numbers are a good example. Consider the challenge of linking EPA data; it's easy to create a list of toxic chemicals that are common across many EPA datasets. Based on those chemical names, its possible to further find (in most cases) references in DBPedia and other sources, such as PubChem: * ACETALDEHYDE * http://dbpedia.org/page/Acetaldehyde * http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=177 * etc... Now, add to this a sensible agency-rooted URI design and a DBPedia-like infrastructure and one has a very powerful hub that strengthens the Linked Data ecosystem. It would arguably be stronger if CAS identifiers were also (somehow) included, but even the bits of linking shown above change the value proposition of traditional proprietary naming schemes... John PS: At TWC we are about to go live with a registry called Instance Hub that will demonstrate the association of agency-based URI schemes --- think EPA, HHS, DOE, USDA, etc --- with instance data over which the agency has some authority or interest...More very soon! On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote: David, On 8/22/2011 9:55 PM, David Booth wrote: On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: [ . . . ] The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so years. That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded. BTW, your objection is that non-licensed systems cannot use CAS identifiers? Are these commercial systems that are charging their customers? Why would you think such systems should be able to take information created by others? Using the information associated with an identifier is one thing; using the identifier itself is another. I'm sure the CAS numbers have added non-trivial value that should not be ignored. But their business model needs to change. It is ludicrous in this web era to prohibit the use of the identifiers themselves. If there is one principle we have learned from the web, it is enormous value and importance of freely usable universal identifiers. URIs rule! http://urisrule.org/ :) Well, I won't take the bait on URIs, ;-), but will note that re-use of identifiers of a sort was addressed quite a few years ago. See: Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) or follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feist_v._Rural The circumstances with CAS numbers is slightly different because to get access to the full set of CAS numbers I suspect you have to sign a licensing agreement on re-use, which makes it a matter of *contract* law and not copyright. Perhaps they should increase the limits beyond 10,000 identifiers but the only people who want the whole monty as it were are potential commercial competitors. The people who publish the periodical Brain for example at $10,000 a year. Why should I want the complete set of identifiers to be freely available to help them? Personally I think given the head start that the CAS maintainers have on the literature, etc., that different models for use of the identifiers might suit their purposes just as well. Universal identifiers change over time and my concern is with the least semantic friction and not as much with how we get there. 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 -- John S. Erickson, Ph.D. http://bitwacker.com olyerick...@gmail.com Twitter: @olyerickson Skype: @olyerickson
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
--- On Tue, 8/23/11, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote: The fact remains that even if we switched (miraculously) today to all new URI identifiers, we will be accessing literature using prior identifiers for a very long time. I suspect hundreds of years. Somewhere around 1890, I think, the amount of published scientific literature exceeded the ability of a person to read it all in a lifetime. Selectivity has been the rule for over 100 years. So the answer is not hundreds of years it's forever. --Gannon
CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
Hi all, On Aug 19, 2011, at 06:37, Patrick Durusau wrote: Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? Well, for one thing, CAS (like DUNS) identifiers are proprietary. They can't be reused for the purposes of identification in non-licensed systems. That causes no end of trouble for researchers, government agencies and corporations who have bought into those proprietary identification schemes only to find out that they can't reuse the identifiers in new contexts. An example is the US Environmental Protection Agency, who uses CAS numbers. They cannot reuse those identifiers when they publish open government data. They are not thrilled about that. The EPA is now publishing their own identifiers. How long will CAS last as a standard? How many ids has the Encyclopedia of Life developed? Or Wikipedia? DUNS numbers, another widely used proprietary identification scheme, are very similar. Orgpedia [1] and similar approaches are and have been started just to break the deadlock of that scheme. Face it: People just hate being boxed in. Sure, you can make a business model out of doing so, but don't expect anyone to love you for it. The Web allows people to think about not boxing themselves in. That is a direct threat to those older and less friendly business models, DUNS and CAS included. Regards, Dave [1] http://dotank.nyls.edu/ORGPedia.html
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
David, On 8/22/2011 7:39 PM, David Wood wrote: Hi all, On Aug 19, 2011, at 06:37, Patrick Durusau wrote: Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? Well, for one thing, CAS (like DUNS) identifiers are proprietary. They can't be reused for the purposes of identification in non-licensed systems. That causes no end of trouble for researchers, government agencies and corporations who have bought into those proprietary identification schemes only to find out that they can't reuse the identifiers in new contexts. Not quite correct. You can use up to 10,000 of the CAS identifiers before licensing restrictions kick in. I think the EPA creating their own identifiers is the result of bad advice. For the following reasons: 1) It simply dirties up the pond of identifiers for organic and inorganic substances with yet another identifier. 2) Users and other implementers will bear the added cost of supporting yet another set of identifiers. 3) The literature in the area will have yet another set of identifiers to either be discovered or mapped. 4) The expertise behind CAS numbers is well known and has a history of high quality work. The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so years. That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded. BTW, your objection is that non-licensed systems cannot use CAS identifiers? Are these commercial systems that are charging their customers? Why would you think such systems should be able to take information created by others? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick An example is the US Environmental Protection Agency, who uses CAS numbers. They cannot reuse those identifiers when they publish open government data. They are not thrilled about that. The EPA is now publishing their own identifiers. How long will CAS last as a standard? How many ids has the Encyclopedia of Life developed? Or Wikipedia? DUNS numbers, another widely used proprietary identification scheme, are very similar. Orgpedia [1] and similar approaches are and have been started just to break the deadlock of that scheme. Face it: People just hate being boxed in. Sure, you can make a business model out of doing so, but don't expect anyone to love you for it. The Web allows people to think about not boxing themselves in. That is a direct threat to those older and less friendly business models, DUNS and CAS included. Regards, Dave [1] http://dotank.nyls.edu/ORGPedia.html -- 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
Re: CAS, DUNS and LOD (was Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW)
On Mon, 2011-08-22 at 20:27 -0400, Patrick Durusau wrote: [ . . . ] The use of CAS identifiers supports searching across vast domains of *existing* literature. Not all, but most of it for the last 60 or so years. That is non-trivial and should not be lightly discarded. BTW, your objection is that non-licensed systems cannot use CAS identifiers? Are these commercial systems that are charging their customers? Why would you think such systems should be able to take information created by others? Using the information associated with an identifier is one thing; using the identifier itself is another. I'm sure the CAS numbers have added non-trivial value that should not be ignored. But their business model needs to change. It is ludicrous in this web era to prohibit the use of the identifiers themselves. If there is one principle we have learned from the web, it is enormous value and importance of freely usable universal identifiers. URIs rule! http://urisrule.org/ :) -- David Booth, Ph.D. http://dbooth.org/ Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of his employer.
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
Kingsley, One more attempt. The press release I pointed to was an example that would have to be particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of integration, then showing *their* savings. The difference in our positions, from my context, is that I am saying the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their* bottom line, over the next quarter, six months, year. I hear (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for their bottom line in any definite period. Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing in a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit as well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and resources.) Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The collection contains links for a variety of research documents. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. Er. and you posted a link to a press release. What's your point? They have no relationship to any reality that I share. But you posted an Informatica press release to make some kind of point. Or am I completely misreading and misunderstanding the purpose of that URL too? It's been enjoyable as usual but without some common basis for discussion we aren't going to get any closer to a common understanding. Correct :-) Kingsley Hope you are having a great week! Patrick On 8/18/2011 3:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 2:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, On 8/18/2011 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 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. I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that takes advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble with the Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and postulating. Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his mindset was: just do it! :-) Still dodging the question I see. ;-) Of course not. You want market research numbers, see the related section at the end of this reply. I sorta assumed you would have found this serendipitously though? Ah! You don't quite believe in the utility of this Linked Data stuff etc.. It avoids it in favor of advocacy. See my comments above. You are skewing my comments to match you desired outcome, methinks. You reach that conclusion pretty frequently. See my earlier comment. I ask for hard numbers, you say that isn't your question and/or skewing your comments. Yes. I didn't know this was about market research and numbers [1]. Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to solve this problem? I assume you know the costs of the above. It won't cost north of a billion dollars to make a WebID based solution. In short, such a thing has existed for a long time, depending on your context lenses . I assume everyone here is familiar with: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID ? So we need to take the number of users who have a WebID and subtract that from the number of FaceBook users. Yes? No! Take the number of people that have are members of a service that's ambivalent to the self calibration of the vulnerabilities of its members aka. privacy. The remaining number need a WebID or some substantial portion, yes? Ultimately they need a WebID absolutely! And do you know why? It will enable members begin the inevitable journey towards self calibration of their respective vulnerabilities. I hope you understand that society is old and the likes of G+, FB are new and utterly immature. In society, one is innocent until proven guilty or not guilty. In the world of FB and G+ the fundamentals of society are currently being inverted. Anyone can ultimately say anything about you. Both parties are building cyber police states
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
On 8/19/11 6:37 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, One more attempt. The press release I pointed to was an example that would have to be particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of integration, then showing *their* savings. Yes, and I sent you a link to a collection of similar documents from which you could find similar research depending on problem type. On the first page you should have seen a link to a research document about the cost of email spam, for instance. CEO, CIOs, CTOs are all dealing with costs of: 1. Spam 2. Password Management 3. Security 4. Data Integration. There isn't a shortage of market research material re. the above and their costs across a plethora of domains. The difference in our positions, from my context, is that I am saying the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their* bottom line, over the next quarter, six months, year. For what its worth I worked for many years as an accountant before I crossed over to the vendor realm during the early days of Open Systems -- when Unix was being introduced to enterprises. That's the reason why integration middleware and dbms technology has been my passion for 20+ years. I am a slightly different profile to what you assume in your comments re. cost-benefits analysis. I hear (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for their bottom line in any definite period. See comment above. I live problems first, then architect technology to solve them. When I tell you about the costs of data integration to enterprises I am basically telling you that I've lived the problem for many years. My understanding is quite deep. Sorry, but this isn't an area when I can pretend to be modest :-) Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? I think the issue is more about: what would identifiers provide to this organization with regards to the obvious need to virtualize its critical data sources such that: 1. data sources are represented as fine grained data objects 2. every data object is endowed with an identifier 3. identifiers become superkey that provide conduits highly navigable data object based zeitgeists -- a single identifier should resolve to graph pictorial representing all data associated with that specific identifier and and additional data that has been reconciled logically e.g., leverage owl:sameAs and IFP (inverse functional property) logic. As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing in a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit as well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and resources.) Kingsley Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The collection contains links for a variety of research documents. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. Er. and you posted a link to a press release. What's your point? They have no relationship to any reality that I share. But you posted an Informatica press release to make some kind of point. Or am I completely misreading and misunderstanding the purpose of that URL too? It's been enjoyable as usual but without some common basis for discussion we aren't going to get any closer to a common understanding. Correct :-) Kingsley Hope you are having a great week! Patrick On 8/18/2011 3:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 2:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, On 8/18/2011 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 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. I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that takes advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble with the Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and postulating. Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his mindset was: just do it! :-) Still
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
Kingsley, Correction: I have never accused you of being modest or of not being an accountant. ;-) Nor have I said the costs you talk about in your accountant voice don't exist. The problem is identifying the cost to a particular client, say of email spam, versus the cost the solution for the same person. For example, I picked a spam article at random that says a 100 person firm *could be losing* as much as $55,000 per year due to spam. Think about that for a minute. That works out to $550 per person. So, if your solution costs more than $550 per person, it isn't worth buying. Besides, the $550 per person *isn't on the books.* Purchasing your solution is. As they say, spam is a hidden cost. Hidden costs are hard to quantify or get people to address. Not to mention that your solution requires an investment before the software can exist for any benefit. That is an even harder sell. Isn't investment to enable a return from another investment (software, later) something accountants can see? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick PS: The random spam article: http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/the_big_cost_of_spam_viruses_for_small_business/ On 8/19/2011 9:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/19/11 6:37 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, One more attempt. The press release I pointed to was an example that would have to be particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of integration, then showing *their* savings. Yes, and I sent you a link to a collection of similar documents from which you could find similar research depending on problem type. On the first page you should have seen a link to a research document about the cost of email spam, for instance. CEO, CIOs, CTOs are all dealing with costs of: 1. Spam 2. Password Management 3. Security 4. Data Integration. There isn't a shortage of market research material re. the above and their costs across a plethora of domains. The difference in our positions, from my context, is that I am saying the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their* bottom line, over the next quarter, six months, year. For what its worth I worked for many years as an accountant before I crossed over to the vendor realm during the early days of Open Systems -- when Unix was being introduced to enterprises. That's the reason why integration middleware and dbms technology has been my passion for 20+ years. I am a slightly different profile to what you assume in your comments re. cost-benefits analysis. I hear (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for their bottom line in any definite period. See comment above. I live problems first, then architect technology to solve them. When I tell you about the costs of data integration to enterprises I am basically telling you that I've lived the problem for many years. My understanding is quite deep. Sorry, but this isn't an area when I can pretend to be modest :-) Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? I think the issue is more about: what would identifiers provide to this organization with regards to the obvious need to virtualize its critical data sources such that: 1. data sources are represented as fine grained data objects 2. every data object is endowed with an identifier 3. identifiers become superkey that provide conduits highly navigable data object based zeitgeists -- a single identifier should resolve to graph pictorial representing all data associated with that specific identifier and and additional data that has been reconciled logically e.g., leverage owl:sameAs and IFP (inverse functional property) logic. As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing in a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit as well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and resources.) Kingsley Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The collection contains links for a variety of research documents. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. Er. and you posted a link to a press release. What's your point? They have no relationship to any reality that I share. But you posted an Informatica press release to make some kind of point. Or am I completely misreading and misunderstanding the purpose of that URL too? It's been enjoyable as usual but without some
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
As fascinating as this discussion is, maybe the two of you want to work it out directly and then report back with a summary? Speaking as just one subscriber's data point, of course, I'm... -Patrick On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 7:41 AM, Patrick Durusau patr...@durusau.net wrote: Kingsley, Correction: I have never accused you of being modest or of not being an accountant. ;-) Nor have I said the costs you talk about in your accountant voice don't exist. The problem is identifying the cost to a particular client, say of email spam, versus the cost the solution for the same person. For example, I picked a spam article at random that says a 100 person firm *could be losing* as much as $55,000 per year due to spam. Think about that for a minute. That works out to $550 per person. So, if your solution costs more than $550 per person, it isn't worth buying. Besides, the $550 per person *isn't on the books.* Purchasing your solution is. As they say, spam is a hidden cost. Hidden costs are hard to quantify or get people to address. Not to mention that your solution requires an investment before the software can exist for any benefit. That is an even harder sell. Isn't investment to enable a return from another investment (software, later) something accountants can see? Hope you are having a great day! Patrick PS: The random spam article: http://blogs.cisco.com/smallbusiness/the_big_cost_of_spam_viruses_for_small_business/ On 8/19/2011 9:57 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/19/11 6:37 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, One more attempt. The press release I pointed to was an example that would have to be particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of integration, then showing *their* savings. Yes, and I sent you a link to a collection of similar documents from which you could find similar research depending on problem type. On the first page you should have seen a link to a research document about the cost of email spam, for instance. CEO, CIOs, CTOs are all dealing with costs of: 1. Spam 2. Password Management 3. Security 4. Data Integration. There isn't a shortage of market research material re. the above and their costs across a plethora of domains. The difference in our positions, from my context, is that I am saying the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their* bottom line, over the next quarter, six months, year. For what its worth I worked for many years as an accountant before I crossed over to the vendor realm during the early days of Open Systems -- when Unix was being introduced to enterprises. That's the reason why integration middleware and dbms technology has been my passion for 20+ years. I am a slightly different profile to what you assume in your comments re. cost-benefits analysis. I hear (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for their bottom line in any definite period. See comment above. I live problems first, then architect technology to solve them. When I tell you about the costs of data integration to enterprises I am basically telling you that I've lived the problem for many years. My understanding is quite deep. Sorry, but this isn't an area when I can pretend to be modest :-) Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? I think the issue is more about: what would identifiers provide to this organization with regards to the obvious need to virtualize its critical data sources such that: 1. data sources are represented as fine grained data objects 2. every data object is endowed with an identifier 3. identifiers become superkey that provide conduits highly navigable data object based zeitgeists -- a single identifier should resolve to graph pictorial representing all data associated with that specific identifier and and additional data that has been reconciled logically e.g., leverage owl:sameAs and IFP (inverse functional property) logic. As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing in a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit as well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and resources.) Kingsley Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The collection contains links for a variety of research documents. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. Er. and you posted a link to a press
Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
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. A favorable cost/benefit ratio has to be recognized by the people being called upon to make the investment in solutions. That is recognition of a favorable cost/benefit ratio by the W3C and company is insufficient. Yes? 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? 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. That isn't specific to SemWeb but any solution to a problem. 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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
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 -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
On 8/18/11 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. I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that takes advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble with the Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and postulating. Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his mindset was: just do it! :-) It avoids it in favor of advocacy. See my comments above. You are skewing my comments to match you desired outcome, methinks. Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to solve this problem? I assume you know the costs of the above. It won't cost north of a billion dollars to make a WebID based solution. In short, such a thing has existed for a long time, depending on your context lenses . Then, what increase in revenue will result from solving it? FB -- less vulnerability and bleed. Startups or Smartups: massive opportunity to make sales by solving a palpable problem. Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why doesn't G+ solve the problem? G+ is trying to do just that, but in the wrong Web dimension. That's why neither G+ nor FB have been able to solve the identity reconciliation riddle. 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. Don't quite get your point. I am talking about a solution that starts off with identity reconciliation, passes through access control lists, and ultimately makes virtues of heterogeneous data virtualization clearer re. data integration pain alleviation. In the above we have a market place north of 100 Billion Dollars. Isn't that an important distinction? Yes, and one that has never been lost on me :-) Kingsley 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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
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. 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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
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 :-) 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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
Kingsley, On 8/18/2011 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 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. I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that takes advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble with the Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and postulating. Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his mindset was: just do it! :-) Still dodging the question I see. ;-) It avoids it in favor of advocacy. See my comments above. You are skewing my comments to match you desired outcome, methinks. You reach that conclusion pretty frequently. I ask for hard numbers, you say that isn't your question and/or skewing your comments. Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to solve this problem? I assume you know the costs of the above. It won't cost north of a billion dollars to make a WebID based solution. In short, such a thing has existed for a long time, depending on your context lenses . I assume everyone here is familiar with: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID ? So we need to take the number of users who have a WebID and subtract that from the number of FaceBook users. Yes? The remaining number need a WebID or some substantial portion, yes? So who bears that cost? Each of those users? It cost each of them something to get a WebID. Yes? What is their benefit from getting that WebID? Will it outweigh their cost in their eyes? Then, what increase in revenue will result from solving it? FB -- less vulnerability and bleed. Startups or Smartups: massive opportunity to make sales by solving a palpable problem. Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why doesn't G+ solve the problem? G+ is trying to do just that, but in the wrong Web dimension. That's why neither G+ nor FB have been able to solve the identity reconciliation riddle. Maybe you share your observations with G and FB. ;-) Seriously, I don't think they are as dumb as everyone seems to think. It may well be they have had this very discussion and decided it isn't cost effective to address. 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. Don't quite get your point. I am talking about a solution that starts off with identity reconciliation, passes through access control lists, and ultimately makes virtues of heterogeneous data virtualization clearer re. data integration pain alleviation. In the above we have a market place north of 100 Billion Dollars. Yes, but your solution: ...starts off with identity reconciliation... Sure, start with the critical problem already solved and you really are at a ...market place north of 100 Billion Dollars..., but that is all in your imagination. Having a system of assigned and reconciled WebIDs isn't a zero cost to users or businesses solution. It is going to cost someone to assign and reconcile those WebIDs. Yes? Since it is your solution, may I ask who is going to pay that cost? Isn't that an important distinction? Yes, and one that has never been lost on me :-) Interested to hear your answer since that distinction has never been lost on you. Patrick Kingsley 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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
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
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
Just an example from practise: http://blog.seevl.net/2011/08/18/about-json-ld-and-content-negotiation/ near the end of this blog post: ... Then, we save costs. - that's it! ;) Cheers, Bo
Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW
Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. They have no relationship to any reality that I share. It's been enjoyable as usual but without some common basis for discussion we aren't going to get any closer to a common understanding. Hope you are having a great week! Patrick On 8/18/2011 3:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 2:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: Kingsley, On 8/18/2011 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: On 8/18/11 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. I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that takes advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble with the Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and postulating. Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his mindset was: just do it! :-) Still dodging the question I see. ;-) Of course not. You want market research numbers, see the related section at the end of this reply. I sorta assumed you would have found this serendipitously though? Ah! You don't quite believe in the utility of this Linked Data stuff etc.. It avoids it in favor of advocacy. See my comments above. You are skewing my comments to match you desired outcome, methinks. You reach that conclusion pretty frequently. See my earlier comment. I ask for hard numbers, you say that isn't your question and/or skewing your comments. Yes. I didn't know this was about market research and numbers [1]. Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to solve this problem? I assume you know the costs of the above. It won't cost north of a billion dollars to make a WebID based solution. In short, such a thing has existed for a long time, depending on your context lenses . I assume everyone here is familiar with: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID ? So we need to take the number of users who have a WebID and subtract that from the number of FaceBook users. Yes? No! Take the number of people that have are members of a service that's ambivalent to the self calibration of the vulnerabilities of its members aka. privacy. The remaining number need a WebID or some substantial portion, yes? Ultimately they need a WebID absolutely! And do you know why? It will enable members begin the inevitable journey towards self calibration of their respective vulnerabilities. I hope you understand that society is old and the likes of G+, FB are new and utterly immature. In society, one is innocent until proven guilty or not guilty. In the world of FB and G+ the fundamentals of society are currently being inverted. Anyone can ultimately say anything about you. Both parties are building cyber police states via their respective silos. Grr... don't get me going on this matter. Every single netizen needs a verifiable identifier. That's the bottom line, and WebID (courtesy of Linked Data) and Trust Semantics nails the issue. So who bears that cost? Each of those users? It cost each of them something to get a WebID. Yes? Look here is a real world example. Just google up on wire shark re. Facebook and Google. Until the wire shark episodes both peddled lame excuses for not using HTTPS. Today both use HTTPS. Do you want to know why? Simple answer: opportunity cost of not doing so became palpable. What is their benefit from getting that WebID? Will it outweigh their cost in their eyes? See comment above. We've already witnessed Craigslist horrors. But all of this is child's play if identity isn't fixed on the InterWeb. If you think I need to give you market numbers for that too, then I think we are simply talking past ourselves (a common occurence). Then, what increase in revenue will result from solving it? FB -- less vulnerability and bleed. Startups or Smartups: massive opportunity to make sales by solving a palpable problem. Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why doesn't G+ solve the problem? G+ is trying to do just that, but in the wrong Web dimension. That's why neither G+ nor FB have been able to solve the identity reconciliation riddle. Maybe you share your observations with G and FB. ;-) Hmm. wondering how you've concluded either way :-) Seriously, I don't
