RE: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Gannon Dick]

At the equator the Sun God works half-days.  Fine example for the little folk, 
that.

Plus another.

On Mon, 11/16/15, john.nj.dav...@bt.com  wrote:

 Subject: RE: What Happened to the Semantic Web?
 To: janow...@ucsb.edu, neil...@oilit.com, public-lod@w3.org, 
semantic-...@w3.org
 Date: Monday, November 16, 2015, 3:24 PM
 
 +1
 
 Bigdata as the new religion debunked
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janow...@ucsb.edu]
 
 Sent: 16 November 2015 17:41
 To: Neil McNaughton ;
 public-lod@w3.org;
 semantic-...@w3.org
 Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic
 Web?
 
 > In this context
 you might like to see what Google thinks
 >
 > https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
 
 Or this link here ;-)
 
 http://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-flu-trends/
 
 
 On 11/16/2015
 01:59 AM, Neil McNaughton wrote:
 > In
 this context you might like to see what Google thinks
 >
 > https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
 >
 > or
 >
 > https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rdf%2Csemantic+web%2Cresource+description+framework&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crdf%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csemantic%20web%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cresource%20description%20framework%3B%2Cc0
 >
 >
 >
 Best regards
 > Neil McNaughton
 > Editor and Publisher, Oil IT Journal
 > Now in its 20th year!
 >
 Oil IT Journal is published by The Data Room SARL
 > 7 Rue des Verrieres
 >
 92310 Sevres, France
 > Cell - +336 7271
 2642
 > Tel - +331 4623 9596
 > UK - +44 20 7193 1489
 >
 USA - +1 281 968 0752
 > i...@oilit.com/http://www.oilit.com
 >
 >
 >
 -Original Message-
 > From:
 Michael Brunnbauer [mailto:bru...@netestate.de]
 > Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:31 PM
 > To: Kingsley Idehen 
 > Cc: Ruben Verborgh ;
 public-lod@w3.org;
 semantic-...@w3.org
 > Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic
 Web?
 >
 >
 > hi all,
 >
 > correct me if I am wrong:
 >
 > -Google CSE
 >   -cannot be queried
 programmatically without violating the Google TOS  -will
 only accept a disjunctive list of schema.org classes as
 restriction  -will only find pages mentioning things, not
 things
 >
 > -Google
 products generally will not recognize triples with classes
 or  properties outside the schema.org namespace (with
 selected exceptions, e.G.
 >   Goodrelations). This is
 understandable, but:
 >
 > -There is no way to tell Google crawlers
 that your classes/properties are  specializations of
 schema.org classes/properties.
 >
 > I would say we are not there yet.
 >
 > Regards,
 >
 > Michael Brunnbauer
 >
 
 
 -- 
 Krzysztof Janowicz
 
 Geography Department,
 University of California, Santa Barbara
 4830
 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060
 
 Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
 Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
 Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
 
 

RE: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[john.nj.davies]

+1

Bigdata as the new religion debunked

-Original Message-
From: Krzysztof Janowicz [mailto:janow...@ucsb.edu] 
Sent: 16 November 2015 17:41
To: Neil McNaughton ; public-lod@w3.org; semantic-...@w3.org
Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

> In this context you might like to see what Google thinks
>
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

Or this link here ;-)

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-flu-trends/


On 11/16/2015 01:59 AM, Neil McNaughton wrote:
> In this context you might like to see what Google thinks
>
> https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
>
> or
>
> https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rdf%2Csemantic+web%2Cresource+description+framework&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crdf%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csemantic%20web%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cresource%20description%20framework%3B%2Cc0
>
>
> Best regards
> Neil McNaughton
> Editor and Publisher, Oil IT Journal
> Now in its 20th year!
> Oil IT Journal is published by The Data Room SARL
> 7 Rue des Verrieres
> 92310 Sevres, France
> Cell - +336 7271 2642
> Tel - +331 4623 9596
> UK - +44 20 7193 1489
> USA - +1 281 968 0752
> i...@oilit.com/http://www.oilit.com
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Michael Brunnbauer [mailto:bru...@netestate.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:31 PM
> To: Kingsley Idehen 
> Cc: Ruben Verborgh ; public-lod@w3.org; 
> semantic-...@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?
>
>
> hi all,
>
> correct me if I am wrong:
>
> -Google CSE
>   -cannot be queried programmatically without violating the Google TOS  -will 
> only accept a disjunctive list of schema.org classes as restriction  -will 
> only find pages mentioning things, not things
>
> -Google products generally will not recognize triples with classes or  
> properties outside the schema.org namespace (with selected exceptions, e.G.
>   Goodrelations). This is understandable, but:
>
> -There is no way to tell Google crawlers that your classes/properties are  
> specializations of schema.org classes/properties.
>
> I would say we are not there yet.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>


-- 
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Krzysztof Janowicz]

In this context you might like to see what Google thinks

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1


Or this link here ;-)

http://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-flu-trends/


On 11/16/2015 01:59 AM, Neil McNaughton wrote:

In this context you might like to see what Google thinks

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1

or

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rdf%2Csemantic+web%2Cresource+description+framework&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crdf%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csemantic%20web%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cresource%20description%20framework%3B%2Cc0


Best regards
Neil McNaughton
Editor and Publisher, Oil IT Journal
Now in its 20th year!
Oil IT Journal is published by The Data Room SARL
7 Rue des Verrieres
92310 Sevres, France
Cell - +336 7271 2642
Tel - +331 4623 9596
UK - +44 20 7193 1489
USA - +1 281 968 0752
i...@oilit.com/http://www.oilit.com


-Original Message-
From: Michael Brunnbauer [mailto:bru...@netestate.de]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:31 PM
To: Kingsley Idehen 
Cc: Ruben Verborgh ; public-lod@w3.org; 
semantic-...@w3.org
Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?


hi all,

correct me if I am wrong:

-Google CSE
  -cannot be queried programmatically without violating the Google TOS  -will 
only accept a disjunctive list of schema.org classes as restriction  -will only 
find pages mentioning things, not things

-Google products generally will not recognize triples with classes or  
properties outside the schema.org namespace (with selected exceptions, e.G.
  Goodrelations). This is understandable, but:

-There is no way to tell Google crawlers that your classes/properties are  
specializations of schema.org classes/properties.

I would say we are not there yet.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer




--
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/13/15 11:30 AM, Michael Brunnbauer wrote:
> hi all,
>
> correct me if I am wrong:
>
> -Google CSE
>  -cannot be queried programmatically without violating the Google TOS

I don't know about that.

As per my demonstrations, you can construct URLs for directly accessing
HTML docs that are scoped to specific schema.org entity types.

>  -will only accept a disjunctive list of schema.org classes as restriction
>  -will only find pages mentioning things, not things

A page can only be about something. A CSE enables you access pages about
something that's an instance of one or more schema.org entity types.

>
> -Google products generally will not recognize triples with classes or
>  properties outside the schema.org namespace (with selected exceptions, e.G. 
>  Goodrelations). This is understandable, but:
>
> -There is no way to tell Google crawlers that your classes/properties are
>  specializations of schema.org classes/properties.

A CSE isn't speaking to Google Crawlers. A CSE let's you scope queries
to Google's Index of Pages that include Structured Data Islands created
using Schema.org terms.

>
> I would say we are not there yet.

And I beg to differ since, "being there" to me is about the following:

[1] Incentivizing Web Masters and Web Developers to construct and
publish Web Documents that include both human and machine-comprehensible
Structured Data Islands

[2] Demonstrating utility of RDF Language based Structured Data, at
Web-scale

[3] Ending distractions such as RDF Language based Document Content
Format wars.


Kingsley
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael Brunnbauer
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

RE: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Neil McNaughton]

In this context you might like to see what Google thinks 

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=rdf%2C%20%2Fm%2F0f2vj%2C%20%2Fm%2F076k0&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-1
  

or

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=rdf%2Csemantic+web%2Cresource+description+framework&year_start=2000&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=0&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Crdf%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Csemantic%20web%3B%2Cc0%3B.t1%3B%2Cresource%20description%20framework%3B%2Cc0
  


Best regards
Neil McNaughton
Editor and Publisher, Oil IT Journal
Now in its 20th year!
Oil IT Journal is published by The Data Room SARL
7 Rue des Verrieres
92310 Sevres, France
Cell - +336 7271 2642
Tel - +331 4623 9596
UK - +44 20 7193 1489
USA - +1 281 968 0752
i...@oilit.com/http://www.oilit.com


-Original Message-
From: Michael Brunnbauer [mailto:bru...@netestate.de] 
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2015 5:31 PM
To: Kingsley Idehen 
Cc: Ruben Verborgh ; public-lod@w3.org; 
semantic-...@w3.org
Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?


hi all,

correct me if I am wrong:

-Google CSE
 -cannot be queried programmatically without violating the Google TOS  -will 
only accept a disjunctive list of schema.org classes as restriction  -will only 
find pages mentioning things, not things

-Google products generally will not recognize triples with classes or  
properties outside the schema.org namespace (with selected exceptions, e.G. 
 Goodrelations). This is understandable, but:

-There is no way to tell Google crawlers that your classes/properties are  
specializations of schema.org classes/properties.

I would say we are not there yet.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89
++  E-Mail bru...@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)  USt-IdNr. 
++ DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Michael Brunnbauer]

hi all,

correct me if I am wrong:

-Google CSE
 -cannot be queried programmatically without violating the Google TOS
 -will only accept a disjunctive list of schema.org classes as restriction
 -will only find pages mentioning things, not things

-Google products generally will not recognize triples with classes or
 properties outside the schema.org namespace (with selected exceptions, e.G. 
 Goodrelations). This is understandable, but:

-There is no way to tell Google crawlers that your classes/properties are
 specializations of schema.org classes/properties.

I would say we are not there yet.

Regards,

Michael Brunnbauer

-- 
++  Michael Brunnbauer
++  netEstate GmbH
++  Geisenhausener Straße 11a
++  81379 München
++  Tel +49 89 32 19 77 80
++  Fax +49 89 32 19 77 89 
++  E-Mail bru...@netestate.de
++  http://www.netestate.de/
++
++  Sitz: München, HRB Nr.142452 (Handelsregister B München)
++  USt-IdNr. DE221033342
++  Geschäftsführer: Michael Brunnbauer, Franz Brunnbauer
++  Prokurist: Dipl. Kfm. (Univ.) Markus Hendel


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/15 11:18 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
> Really I don't see how much better the search results on the right
> ("Google CSE") are then the ones on the left.  It is a little like this:
>
> http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php
>
> Google and Bing are stuck with P@1 at %70 or so because they don't
> always know the intent of the question.
>
> Various systems that put documents in a blender,  discarding the order
> of the words,  perform astonishingly well at search,  classification
> and other tasks -- anything "smarter" that this has to solve the
> "difficult" problems that remain,  and little steps (like "not good"
> -> "bad" for sentiment analysis) help only a few marginal cases.
>
> The promise of semantics is to give people an experience they never
> had before,  not move some score from .81 to .83.

Paul,

Impact scale of .81 to .83 varies, as you know. For a Web Content
behemoth that's significant :)

Bridges to structured data provided by the aforementioned behemoths aids
the following:

[1] Improvements from behemoths
[2] Investment from behemoths and their close associates (e.g., Venture
Capitalists)
[3] Acquisitions by behemoths.

Any structured data is fodder for value added products and services from
this community. I still believe "Opportunity Costs Realization" is the
ultimate trigger for change and improvement in commercial settings.

Google, Bing, and friends are just parts of the larger ecosystem.

Kingsley 
>
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:29 AM, David Wood  > wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 12, 2015, at 07:51, Kingsley Idehen  > wrote:
>
>> On 11/12/15 6:45 AM, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > > To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my 
> machine.
 > 
 > To me its just a Web of Data [...]
>>> Ruben says "The Semantic Web" and Kingsley answers "just a Web of Data".
>>>
>>> In my tutorial "introduction to the semantic web" last week at
>>> SemWeb.Pro, I presented the Semantic Web and the Web of Data as the
>>> same thing.
>>>
>>> Then Fabien Gandon from Inria summarized the first session of the MOOC
>>> "Le Web Sémantique" and distinguished two items in a couple
>>> (web of data ; semantic web).
>>>
>>> It made me think that splitting the thing in two after the fact might
>>> have benefits:
>>>
>>> - Web of Data = what works today = 1st deliverable of the SemWeb Project
>>>
>>> - Semantic Web = what will work = prov, trust, inference, smartclient, 
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> It allows us to say that The Semantic Web Project **has*delivered** its
>>> version 1, nicknamed "Web of Data", and that more versions will follow.
>>>
>>> [Hopefully in a couple years the "Web of Data" will have completely
>>> merged with the One True Web and nobody will care about making a
>>> distinction any more]
>>>
>>> That way of putting things fits well with the iterative/agile/lean
>>> culture of project management that is now spreading all over.
>>>
>>> Do you know of people that have been trying to sell things this way?
>>
>> Hopefully everyone :)
>
>
> +1  :)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Regards,
>>
>> Kingsley Idehen
>> Founder & CEO 
>> OpenLink Software 
>> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
>> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
>> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
>> 
>> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
>> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
>> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
>> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Paul Houle
>
> *Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed
> Systems, Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*
>
> (607) 539 6254paul.houle on Skype   ontolo...@gmail.com
> 
>
> :BaseKB -- Query Freebase Data With SPARQL
> http://basekb.com/gold/
>
> Legal Entity Identifier Lookup
> https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/
> 
>
> Join our Data Lakes group on LinkedIn
> https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8267275
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this



smime.p7s
Description: S/M

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 12 November 2015 at 12:45, Nicolas Chauvat 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > > To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
> >
> > To me its just a Web of Data [...]
>
> Ruben says "The Semantic Web" and Kingsley answers "just a Web of Data".
>
> In my tutorial "introduction to the semantic web" last week at
> SemWeb.Pro, I presented the Semantic Web and the Web of Data as the
> same thing.
>
> Then Fabien Gandon from Inria summarized the first session of the MOOC
> "Le Web Sémantique" and distinguished two items in a couple
> (web of data ; semantic web).
>
> It made me think that splitting the thing in two after the fact might
> have benefits:
>
> - Web of Data = what works today = 1st deliverable of the SemWeb Project
>

This is an interesting take.  I really like the way Dan C framed things
years ago:

"The important word in Semantic Web is 'Web'"

IMHO, the "web of data" is a side effect of the "semantic web" project,
which is a side effect of the "web" project.  ie to allow anything to be
connected to anything, with a boostrap via the web of documents.

Is the web of data the first deliverable of the SemWeb project, I think you
could view it that way.

One other important aspect from "Weaving the Web".  And that is that the
web is "more a social invention than a technical one".  Opinions may vary,
but I dont think the web of data as it is today, *on it's own*, qualifies
enough as social to be really a first class deliverable.

However if you combine the web of data, with thinks like Solid, I think we
are there.  Now it's time to start using it, and gaining market share.


>
> - Semantic Web = what will work = prov, trust, inference, smartclient, etc.
>

These strike me as more tactical, and will become increasingly useful tools
over time.


>
> It allows us to say that The Semantic Web Project *has*delivered* its
> version 1, nicknamed "Web of Data", and that more versions will follow.
>
> [Hopefully in a couple years the "Web of Data" will have completely
> merged with the One True Web and nobody will care about making a
> distinction any more]
>
> That way of putting things fits well with the iterative/agile/lean
> culture of project management that is now spreading all over.
>
> Do you know of people that have been trying to sell things this way?
>

I like the sense of this argument, in that it's a continuum, with milestone
achieved on the way.  I suppose different people will focus on different
markers.  But that's as it should be, more important is that what's
delivered is designed to interoperate.


>
> --
> Nicolas Chauvat
>
> logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de
> connaissances
>
>

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Paul Houle]

Really I don't see how much better the search results on the right ("Google
CSE") are then the ones on the left.  It is a little like this:

http://www.audiocheck.net/blindtests_16vs8bit_NeilYoung.php

Google and Bing are stuck with P@1 at %70 or so because they don't always
know the intent of the question.

Various systems that put documents in a blender,  discarding the order of
the words,  perform astonishingly well at search,  classification and other
tasks -- anything "smarter" that this has to solve the "difficult" problems
that remain,  and little steps (like "not good" -> "bad" for sentiment
analysis) help only a few marginal cases.

The promise of semantics is to give people an experience they never had
before,  not move some score from .81 to .83.

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:29 AM, David Wood  wrote:

>
> On Nov 12, 2015, at 07:51, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
>
> On 11/12/15 6:45 AM, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>
> > > To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
>
> > > To me its just a Web of Data [...]
>
> Ruben says "The Semantic Web" and Kingsley answers "just a Web of Data".
>
> In my tutorial "introduction to the semantic web" last week at
> SemWeb.Pro, I presented the Semantic Web and the Web of Data as the
> same thing.
>
> Then Fabien Gandon from Inria summarized the first session of the MOOC
> "Le Web Sémantique" and distinguished two items in a couple
> (web of data ; semantic web).
>
> It made me think that splitting the thing in two after the fact might
> have benefits:
>
> - Web of Data = what works today = 1st deliverable of the SemWeb Project
>
> - Semantic Web = what will work = prov, trust, inference, smartclient, etc.
>
> It allows us to say that The Semantic Web Project **has*delivered** its
> version 1, nicknamed "Web of Data", and that more versions will follow.
>
> [Hopefully in a couple years the "Web of Data" will have completely
> merged with the One True Web and nobody will care about making a
> distinction any more]
>
> That way of putting things fits well with the iterative/agile/lean
> culture of project management that is now spreading all over.
>
> Do you know of people that have been trying to sell things this way?
>
>
> Hopefully everyone :)
>
>
>
> +1  :)
>
> Regards,
> Dave
> --
> http://about.me/david_wood
>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen   
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>
>


-- 
Paul Houle

*Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems,
Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*

(607) 539 6254paul.houle on Skype   ontolo...@gmail.com

:BaseKB -- Query Freebase Data With SPARQL
http://basekb.com/gold/

Legal Entity Identifier Lookup
https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/


Join our Data Lakes group on LinkedIn
https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8267275

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[David Wood]

> On Nov 12, 2015, at 07:51, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
> 
>> On 11/12/15 6:45 AM, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
 > > To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
>>> > 
>>> > To me its just a Web of Data [...]
>> Ruben says "The Semantic Web" and Kingsley answers "just a Web of Data".
>> 
>> In my tutorial "introduction to the semantic web" last week at
>> SemWeb.Pro, I presented the Semantic Web and the Web of Data as the
>> same thing.
>> 
>> Then Fabien Gandon from Inria summarized the first session of the MOOC
>> "Le Web Sémantique" and distinguished two items in a couple
>> (web of data ; semantic web).
>> 
>> It made me think that splitting the thing in two after the fact might
>> have benefits:
>> 
>> - Web of Data = what works today = 1st deliverable of the SemWeb Project
>> 
>> - Semantic Web = what will work = prov, trust, inference, smartclient, etc.
>> 
>> It allows us to say that The Semantic Web Project *has*delivered* its
>> version 1, nicknamed "Web of Data", and that more versions will follow.
>> 
>> [Hopefully in a couple years the "Web of Data" will have completely
>> merged with the One True Web and nobody will care about making a
>> distinction any more]
>> 
>> That way of putting things fits well with the iterative/agile/lean
>> culture of project management that is now spreading all over.
>> 
>> Do you know of people that have been trying to sell things this way?
> 
> Hopefully everyone :)


+1  :)

Regards,
Dave
--
http://about.me/david_wood


> 
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO 
> OpenLink Software 
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/12/15 6:45 AM, Nicolas Chauvat wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>> > > To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
>> > 
>> > To me its just a Web of Data [...]
> Ruben says "The Semantic Web" and Kingsley answers "just a Web of Data".
>
> In my tutorial "introduction to the semantic web" last week at
> SemWeb.Pro, I presented the Semantic Web and the Web of Data as the
> same thing.
>
> Then Fabien Gandon from Inria summarized the first session of the MOOC
> "Le Web Sémantique" and distinguished two items in a couple
> (web of data ; semantic web).
>
> It made me think that splitting the thing in two after the fact might
> have benefits:
>
> - Web of Data = what works today = 1st deliverable of the SemWeb Project
>
> - Semantic Web = what will work = prov, trust, inference, smartclient, etc.
>
> It allows us to say that The Semantic Web Project *has*delivered* its
> version 1, nicknamed "Web of Data", and that more versions will follow.
>
> [Hopefully in a couple years the "Web of Data" will have completely
> merged with the One True Web and nobody will care about making a
> distinction any more]
>
> That way of putting things fits well with the iterative/agile/lean
> culture of project management that is now spreading all over.
>
> Do you know of people that have been trying to sell things this way?

Hopefully everyone :)


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Nicolas Chauvat]

Hi,

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:27:10PM -0500, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> > To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
> 
> To me its just a Web of Data [...]

Ruben says "The Semantic Web" and Kingsley answers "just a Web of Data".

In my tutorial "introduction to the semantic web" last week at
SemWeb.Pro, I presented the Semantic Web and the Web of Data as the
same thing.

Then Fabien Gandon from Inria summarized the first session of the MOOC
"Le Web Sémantique" and distinguished two items in a couple
(web of data ; semantic web).

It made me think that splitting the thing in two after the fact might
have benefits:

- Web of Data = what works today = 1st deliverable of the SemWeb Project

- Semantic Web = what will work = prov, trust, inference, smartclient, etc.

It allows us to say that The Semantic Web Project *has*delivered* its
version 1, nicknamed "Web of Data", and that more versions will follow.

[Hopefully in a couple years the "Web of Data" will have completely
merged with the One True Web and nobody will care about making a
distinction any more]

That way of putting things fits well with the iterative/agile/lean
culture of project management that is now spreading all over.

Do you know of people that have been trying to sell things this way?

-- 
Nicolas Chauvat

logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de connaissances  

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Wouter Beek]

​Hi Krzysztof,​

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:12 AM, Krzysztof Janowicz 
wrote:

> I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game for
> the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing (search,
> email, social networking, even simple things like text chat).
>
> I am not sure what you mean.

​I can give an example.  ​While FOSS exists for setting up your own email
server very few people today do this.  What is true at the individual level
is increasingly becoming true at the community/organization level as well.
The University of Amsterdam (UvA) moved the email facility for all its
students&staff over to Gmail a few years ago.  Similar examples can be
given for most other common Web-based tasks (code is shared on Github,
personal (mini|micro)blogs are maintained at Twitter, etc.)
​


> Most of the knowledge graphs out there today, however, are one way streets
> in which the public contributes, updates, and cleans the data but does not
> get free and open access to that very data.

​If data becomes an asset companies will not be eager to give everyone free
read access to it.  There is also some fairness to this, provided the
company has invested in collecting/cleaning/disseminating the data.  I see
a parallel with Cyc which may be one of the highest quality KBs in
existence but which has always had a restrictive read policy (through
expensive licensing).​

While reading SW data will become a problem as soon as that data becomes
valuable, it is also difficult to *write* to the SW today.  As the sheer
number of readable endpoints is very low (sparqles.ai.wu.ac.at monitors 150
of them right now, and shows that growth over time is only linear) it is
difficult to express your personal opinion ("Everyone can say anything
about anything​", as Ruben mentioned).  With so few readable endpoints out
there each endpoint will have to aggregate opinions of many people into one
data collection.  If you have an alternative opinion about something that
does not fit into an existing endpoint's aggregate your opinion will simply
not be found.  This negatively impacts the democratic potential of the SW
IMO.

>
> The WWW shows that the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic potential,
> and data ownership are not enough to make distributed solutions succeed.
>
> IMHO, the WWW shows the exact opposite. I also do not see these three as
> 'soft benefits'.

​I intended 'soft benefits' to denote those aspects of computing that apply
to the broader social and societal context within which technology
operates.  There may be more standard terminology to express this (fuzzy)
distinction.

'Soft' should in no sense be taken to imply 'less important' or anything
like that!
​
---
Best,
Wouter.

Email: m...@wouterbeek.com
WWW: wouterbeek.com
Tel: +31647674624

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Wouter Beek]

​Hi Martynas,​

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:10 AM, Martynas Jusevičius  wrote:

> could you elaborate on the agent calculus bit?

​This is something I have studied for the last year or so.  There is very
little prior work within the SW field, alas.  "SW Reasoning by Swarm
Intelligence
"
is one of them.  The main idea is that an agent that has to navigate a
distributed graph in order to perform some computation task might use (1)
the structural properties of the graph, (2) its vicinity (some notion of
context), (3) interactions with other agents in order to arrive at a
consistent result even though the total data collection is inconsistent,
opinionated, fuzzy, etc.

---
Best,
Wouter.

Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl
WWW: wouterbeek.com
Tel: +31647674624

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Wouter Beek]

​Hi Melvin,​

On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 12:24 AM, Melvin Carvalho 
wrote:

​Today we are nowhere near this vision.  In fact,
>> ​​
>> we may be further removed from it today than we were in 2001.  If you
>> look at the last ISWC there was particularly little work on (Web) agents.
>>
> I think this may be more a reflection on ISWC than the semantic web.
>
​Good point.​

It's hard to make a useful client side app that is original, because
> normally the same functionality exists somewhere on some server.  So at
> that point it probably will struggle to qualify as original research.
>
I was also referring to more theoretic research into agents, agent calculi
and the like as a basis for computation.  If you search for "​Semantic Web
agents​" on Google Scholar you find that most papers are from 2001-2005.
This was apparently a research focus back then, which is what I meant when
I said that "
​
we may be further removed from it today than we were in 2001."

---
Best,
Woute
​r​
.

Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl
WWW: wouterbeek.com
Tel: +31647674624

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Joël Kuiper]

The title of that post is extremely similar to my post a while back! 

Whatever happened to semantic web 
https://joelkuiper.eu/semantic-web


Funny, although completely different types of posts! 

Joël 



> On 11 Nov 2015, at 15:17, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> I think I inadvertently forgot to share this blog post [1] with this
> community.
> 
> Links:
> 
> [1]
> http://kidehen.blogspot.cz/2015/09/what-happened-to-semantic-web.html --
> What Happened to the Semantic Web?
> [2] https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/posts/8aMYzBN2FjL -- End of
> RDF Document Format Wars.
> 
> -- 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen 
> Founder & CEO 
> OpenLink Software 
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
> 
> 

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Mike Bergman]

Excellent response, Kingsley!

On 11/11/2015 6:37 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

On 11/11/15 3:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

Hi Kingsley,

Some valid points. Two quick remarks:


For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.

I think the "Semantic Web" has always been about "The Web" (clients and
servers) :)

Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on servers,
whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would do things 
(using those servers).
Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the Google/CSE example 
also shows.


Okay, I certainly agree with that observation. Too much emphasis on
servers and large datasets has starved the crucial need for
collaboration on the client side.

Areas of starvation include:

1. Bindings various UI/UX frameworks to data access controls capable of
handling JSON-LD, Turtle, RDFa etc..
2. Constructing sophisticated data access controls that simplify Linked
Data exploitation by client-centric developers.

Collaboration taking shape on the Javascript front re. rdflib.js,
rdfstore.js, SoLID, and RWW in general etc.. are great examples of
movement in the right areas (IMHO).




At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.

No, you can craft a CSE yourself right now and triangulate searches
scoped to specific entity types.

Do you mean making a CSE through the Google interface?


Google offers CSEs as a kind of service. If you leave said service with
Google trimmings there's no cost. If you seek to remove Google trimmings
then they charge a fee. Either way, that's fair enough in my eyes.

But then I'm actually querying the Google servers, not the Web…


Google is a major Web hub, via CSEs you can find pathways to other
places on the Web. What useful about these CSEs is that they return a
boatload of documents that include RDF based structured data [1].


Then intelligence is with a centralized system, not between clients and servers.


Google is just one of many hubs from which RDF documents can be
discovered and access.

Not yet the Semantic Web for me.


I the "Semantic" and "Web" components of the meme breakdown as follows,
in my experience:

1. Semantic -- structured data endowed with machine- and human-readable
relationship type semantics.

2. Web -- hyperlinks functioning dually as mechanism for entity
denotation and connotation  (i.e., names resolve to RDF Language based
descriptor documents).



Best,

Ruben

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/11/15 5:56 PM, Wouter Beek wrote:
> ​Hi Ruben, Kingsley, others,
> ​
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh
> mailto:ruben.verbo...@ugent.be>> wrote:
>
> Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on
> servers,
>
> ​ The emphasis has been on servers and, as of late, on Web Services.
> ​

Yes, that too is a new area of focus as exemplified by Hydra.

> whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would
> do things (using those servers).
>
> ​ Today we are nowhere near this vision.  In fact, we may be further
> removed from it today than we were in 2001.  If you look at the last
> ISWC there was particularly little work on (Web) agents.

As Rueben stated, too much focus has been paid to servers (which are
focused on large datasets etc..). The real game (as I see it) boils down
to small packets of "smart data" being transmitted via hyperlinks  etc..

>
> Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the
> Google/CSE example also shows.
>
> With the LOD Laundromat  we had the
> experience that people really like it when we make publishing and
> consuming data very easy for them.  People generally find it easier to
> publish their data through a Web Service rather than having to use
> more capable data publishing software they have to configure locally. 
> We ended up with a highly centralized approach that works for many use
> cases.  It would have been much more difficult the build the same
> thing in a distributed fashion.

True. That's why its really a bit of everything rather than total focus
on one side of the equation. Right now, I think its time for clients and
services (controllers) to drive most of the interesting innovations and
collaborations.

>
> I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game
> for the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing
> (search, email, social networking, even simple things like text chat).

The won't be centralization because more of the "deep web" will come to
the surface reducing the size and impacts of many of today's magnitude
based control points. This is just a natural feature of the Web that
can't be suppressed by anyone (person, organization, or bot army).

> The WWW shows that the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic
> potential, and data ownership are not enough to make distributed
> solutions succeed.

They are drivers that will aid increasing efforts to reduce
centralization. Those issues a completely incompatible with centralization.

>
> However, I believe that there are other benefits to decentralization
> that have not been articulated yet and that are to be found within the
> semantic realm.  An agent calculus is fundamentally different from a
> traditional model theory.

Naturally :)


Kingsley
>
> ---
> Best regards,
> Wouter Beek.
>
> Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl 
> WWW: wouterbeek.com 
> Tel: +31647674624


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/11/15 3:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> Some valid points. Two quick remarks:
>
>>> For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.
>> I think the "Semantic Web" has always been about "The Web" (clients and
>> servers) :)
> Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on servers,
> whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would do things 
> (using those servers).
> Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the Google/CSE example 
> also shows.

Okay, I certainly agree with that observation. Too much emphasis on
servers and large datasets has starved the crucial need for
collaboration on the client side.

Areas of starvation include:

1. Bindings various UI/UX frameworks to data access controls capable of
handling JSON-LD, Turtle, RDFa etc..
2. Constructing sophisticated data access controls that simplify Linked
Data exploitation by client-centric developers.

Collaboration taking shape on the Javascript front re. rdflib.js,
rdfstore.js, SoLID, and RWW in general etc.. are great examples of
movement in the right areas (IMHO).

>
>>> At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
>>> who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.
>> No, you can craft a CSE yourself right now and triangulate searches
>> scoped to specific entity types.
> Do you mean making a CSE through the Google interface?

Google offers CSEs as a kind of service. If you leave said service with
Google trimmings there's no cost. If you seek to remove Google trimmings
then they charge a fee. Either way, that's fair enough in my eyes.
> But then I'm actually querying the Google servers, not the Web…

Google is a major Web hub, via CSEs you can find pathways to other
places on the Web. What useful about these CSEs is that they return a
boatload of documents that include RDF based structured data [1].

> Then intelligence is with a centralized system, not between clients and 
> servers.

Google is just one of many hubs from which RDF documents can be
discovered and access.
> Not yet the Semantic Web for me.

I the "Semantic" and "Web" components of the meme breakdown as follows,
in my experience:

1. Semantic -- structured data endowed with machine- and human-readable
relationship type semantics.

2. Web -- hyperlinks functioning dually as mechanism for entity
denotation and connotation  (i.e., names resolve to RDF Language based
descriptor documents).

>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>


-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Gannon Dick]

On Wed, 11/11/15, Wouter Beek  wrote:

I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game for the 
SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing (search, email, social 
networking, even simple things like text chat).  The WWW shows that the 'soft 
benefits' of privacy, democratic potential, and data
ownership are not enough to make distributed solutions succeed.

-
fait accompli ?  No.  Just no. As Wolfgang Pauli put it "That's not even 
wrong!".

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 11 November 2015 at 23:56, Wouter Beek  wrote:

> ​Hi Ruben, Kingsley, others,
> ​
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh 
> wrote:
>
>> Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on servers,
>>
> ​The emphasis has been on servers and, as of late, on Web Services.
> ​
>
>> whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would do
>> things (using those servers).
>>
> ​Today we are nowhere near this vision.  In fact, we may be further
> removed from it today than we were in 2001.  If you look at the last ISWC
> there was particularly little work on (Web) agents.
>

I think this may be more a reflection on ISWC than the semantic web.  It's
hard to make a useful client side app that is original, because normally
the same functionality exists somewhere on some server.  So at that point
it probably will struggle to qualify as original research.


>
> Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the Google/CSE
>> example also shows.
>>
> With the LOD Laundromat  we had the experience
> that people really like it when we make publishing and consuming data very
> easy for them.  People generally find it easier to publish their data
> through a Web Service rather than having to use more capable data
> publishing software they have to configure locally.  We ended up with a
> highly centralized approach that works for many use cases.  It would have
> been much more difficult the build the same thing in a distributed fashion.
>
> I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game for
> the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing (search,
> email, social networking, even simple things like text chat).  The WWW
> shows that the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic potential, and data
> ownership are not enough to make distributed solutions succeed.
>
> However, I believe that there are other benefits to decentralization that
> have not been articulated yet and that are to be found within the semantic
> realm.  An agent calculus is fundamentally different from a traditional
> model theory.
>
> ---
> Best regards,
> Wouter Beek.
>
> Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl
> WWW: wouterbeek.com
> Tel: +31647674624
>

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Krzysztof Janowicz]

I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game 
for the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing 
(search, email, social networking, even simple things like text chat).


I am not sure what you mean. The Web is decentralized and email is 
decentralized as well. Moreover, I think that Ruben's original email 
also pointed to access and ownership when he mentioned the role of 
clients. If the Data Web should/would be similar to the WWW, everybody 
could add data but also reuse and consume these data in various ways. 
Most of the knowledge graphs out there today, however, are one way 
streets in which the public contributes, updates, and cleans the data 
but does not get free and open access to that very data.


The WWW shows that the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic 
potential, and data ownership are not enough to make distributed 
solutions succeed.


IMHO, the WWW shows the exact opposite. I also do not see these three as 
'soft benefits'.


It would have been much more difficult the build the same thing in a 
distributed fashion.


Agreed, see my previous mail.

Best,
Krzysztof


On 11/11/2015 02:56 PM, Wouter Beek wrote:

​Hi Ruben, Kingsley, others,
​
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh 
mailto:ruben.verbo...@ugent.be>> wrote:


Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on
servers,

​ The emphasis has been on servers and, as of late, on Web Services.
​

whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would
do things (using those servers).

​ Today we are nowhere near this vision.  In fact, we may be further 
removed from it today than we were in 2001. If you look at the last 
ISWC there was particularly little work on (Web) agents.


Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the
Google/CSE example also shows.

With the LOD Laundromat  we had the 
experience that people really like it when we make publishing and 
consuming data very easy for them. People generally find it easier to 
publish their data through a Web Service rather than having to use 
more capable data publishing software they have to configure locally.  
We ended up with a highly centralized approach that works for many use 
cases.  It would have been much more difficult the build the same 
thing in a distributed fashion.


I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game 
for the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing 
(search, email, social networking, even simple things like text 
chat).  The WWW shows that the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic 
potential, and data ownership are not enough to make distributed 
solutions succeed.


However, I believe that there are other benefits to decentralization 
that have not been articulated yet and that are to be found within the 
semantic realm.  An agent calculus is fundamentally different from a 
traditional model theory.


---
Best regards,
Wouter Beek.

Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl 
WWW: wouterbeek.com 
Tel: +31647674624



--
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Martynas Jusevičius]

Wouter,

could you elaborate on the agent calculus bit?


Martynas
graphityhq.com

On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:56 PM, Wouter Beek  wrote:
> Hi Ruben, Kingsley, others,
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh 
> wrote:
>>
>> Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on servers,
>
> The emphasis has been on servers and, as of late, on Web Services.
>>
>> whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would do
>> things (using those servers).
>
> Today we are nowhere near this vision.  In fact, we may be further removed
> from it today than we were in 2001.  If you look at the last ISWC there was
> particularly little work on (Web) agents.
>
>> Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the Google/CSE
>> example also shows.
>
> With the LOD Laundromat we had the experience that people really like it
> when we make publishing and consuming data very easy for them.  People
> generally find it easier to publish their data through a Web Service rather
> than having to use more capable data publishing software they have to
> configure locally.  We ended up with a highly centralized approach that
> works for many use cases.  It would have been much more difficult the build
> the same thing in a distributed fashion.
>
> I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game for
> the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing (search, email,
> social networking, even simple things like text chat).  The WWW shows that
> the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic potential, and data ownership are
> not enough to make distributed solutions succeed.
>
> However, I believe that there are other benefits to decentralization that
> have not been articulated yet and that are to be found within the semantic
> realm.  An agent calculus is fundamentally different from a traditional
> model theory.
>
> ---
> Best regards,
> Wouter Beek.
>
> Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl
> WWW: wouterbeek.com
> Tel: +31647674624

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Wouter Beek]

​Hi Ruben, Kingsley, others,
​
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Ruben Verborgh 
wrote:

> Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on servers,
>
​The emphasis has been on servers and, as of late, on Web Services.
​

> whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would do
> things (using those servers).
>
​Today we are nowhere near this vision.  In fact, we may be further removed
from it today than we were in 2001.  If you look at the last ISWC there was
particularly little work on (Web) agents.

Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the Google/CSE
> example also shows.
>
With the LOD Laundromat  we had the experience
that people really like it when we make publishing and consuming data very
easy for them.  People generally find it easier to publish their data
through a Web Service rather than having to use more capable data
publishing software they have to configure locally.  We ended up with a
highly centralized approach that works for many use cases.  It would have
been much more difficult the build the same thing in a distributed fashion.

I find it difficult to see why centralization will not be the end game for
the SW as it has been for so many other aspects of computing (search,
email, social networking, even simple things like text chat).  The WWW
shows that the 'soft benefits' of privacy, democratic potential, and data
ownership are not enough to make distributed solutions succeed.

However, I believe that there are other benefits to decentralization that
have not been articulated yet and that are to be found within the semantic
realm.  An agent calculus is fundamentally different from a traditional
model theory.

---
Best regards,
Wouter Beek.

Email: w.g.j.b...@vu.nl
WWW: wouterbeek.com
Tel: +31647674624

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Ruben Verborgh]

Hi Kingsley,

Some valid points. Two quick remarks:

>> For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.
> 
> I think the "Semantic Web" has always been about "The Web" (clients and
> servers) :)

Of course—but the emphasis in the community has mostly been on servers,
whereas the SemWeb vision started from agents (clients) that would do things 
(using those servers).
Now, the Semantic Web is mostly a server thing, which the Google/CSE example 
also shows.

>> At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
>> who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.
> 
> No, you can craft a CSE yourself right now and triangulate searches
> scoped to specific entity types.

Do you mean making a CSE through the Google interface?
But then I'm actually querying the Google servers, not the Web…
Then intelligence is with a centralized system, not between clients and servers.
Not yet the Semantic Web for me.

Best,

Ruben

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 11/11/15 12:25 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi Kingsley,
>
> While your main points are correct, I disagree with your conclusion.
> I guess everything depends on what you mean with "The Semantic Web",
> but if I read the article with that title, we're arguably _not_ there.
>
> In that sense, I find it strange you use Google as an example of success.

I use them as an example because they are providing a platform for
accessing data based on entity relationship type semantics. I
specifically included Custom Google Search (CSE) engine links in my post
to demonstrate this point [1].

Google has a massive index of structured data culled from
HTML5+Microdata, JSON-LD, HTML+RDFa, Microdata, and maybe even Turtle
docs. Access to said indexes is possible via CSEs scoped to specific
Entity Types.

> The fact that the big players are doing something with Linked Data,
> is not necessarily a success, as they have much larger means than most of us.

Of course that's success, especially when it doesn't end up in some
guarded silo. Google is providing access to this data, and its is clear
that access fidelity will increase over time, for sure.

Google's actions ensure all their competitors will take note and follow
suit. Watch out for the Deep Linking App indexing promised by Microsoft
in regards to Services (Apps) and Actions.

>
> For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.

I think the "Semantic Web" has always been about "The Web" (clients and
servers) :)

> It's a democratic principle of publishing and consuming data:
> everyone can say anything about anything,
> but everyone should also be able to consume that data.

Of course, and that's happening on a level that surpasses what we had
15+ years ago. Put differently, the actions of behemoths like Google
make it a zillion times easier to articulate and demonstrate "Semantic
Web" virtues.

>
> At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
> who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.

No, you can craft a CSE yourself right now and triangulate searches
scoped to specific entity types. Is this perfect? Of course not, but its
a zillion times better than zilch!

> In what sense did we succeed then?

Fundamentally, by virtue of the following actions:

[1] Schema.org support
[2] JSON-LD notation support -- this is a massive bridge between many
Semantic Web world views that failed to converge
[3] Integrating Schema.org into Custom Search Engine service.

>
> To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.

To me its just a Web of Data that includes entity relationship type
semantics that are comprehensible to both humans and machines. I can
start exploration and discovery of data, information, and knowledge from
my personal device (watch, phone, tablet, laptop, desktop, server etc..)
by simply looking-up a hyperlink.
> My client that knows my preferences, doesn't share them,
> but uses them the find information on the Web for me.
> I still hope to see that. Then, we might be there.

The Semantic Web is here. Evolution will continue as part of its
innovation continuum, naturally  :)

>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>
>

Links:

[1] https://delicious.com/kidehen/google_custom_search
[2]
https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=008280912992940796406:buiznppg_vy&q=Semantic+Web
-- Structured Data docs about Books associated with Semantic Web
[3]
https://cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=008280912992940796406:vmu7ys-yeli&q=Linked+Data+RDF
-- Datasets associated with Linked Data and RDF .

-- 
Regards,

Kingsley Idehen   
Founder & CEO 
OpenLink Software 
Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this




smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Gannon Dick]

On Wed, 11/11/15, Ruben Verborgh  wrote:

 Subject: Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?
 To: "Kingsley Idehen" 
 Cc: public-lod@w3.org, "semantic-...@w3.org" 
 Date: Wednesday, November 11, 2015, 11:25 AM
 
 
To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine. My client 
that knows my preferences, doesn't share them, but uses them the find 
information on the Web for me. I still hope to see that. Then, we might be 
there.
 
--
Nicely put Ruben.

I live in the countryside now, but lived in large cities for a couple of 
decades.  I prefer the country, but it is a negative pattern.  In a large city 
one is never far from a place one would rather not be.  The unease is constant 
and persistent.  To the extent that Google insists I "experience" my kitchen on 
their terms I have no time for them.
 

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Krzysztof Janowicz]

Hi Ruben, all,


For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.
It's a democratic principle of publishing and consuming data:
everyone can say anything about anything,
but everyone should also be able to consume that data.


You are making an interesting point here that also reminds me of Frank 
van Harmelen's Keynote at ISWC 2011 
(http://www.cs.vu.nl/~frankh/spool/ISWC2011Keynote/ ; see the 'earth 
globe slide' slide). It looks like we are making progress on distributed 
computing but distributed *data-consumption* seems to be a very 
difficult problem. This is why you see Google and other talking our work 
and data and centralizing them. It is simply a performance and data 
conflation/curation issue.


I agree that this is not what we dreamed about and that we have a long 
way to go, but I agree with Kingsley that we should be very happy and 
maybe even proud that our core ideas and *paradigms* have revolutionized 
web search, intelligent personal assistants, and so forth. Keep in mind 
that the job of the industry is to make things simple and scalable. 
Large parts of Google's success rely on simplicity, ease of access, and 
performance. Linked Data, semantic technologies, and most importantly 
*insights* from Semantic Web research are used all over the place now 
including governments, industry, and other fields in academia.


I still strongly believe in the vision of a distributed, open, free, and 
dynamic web of semantically rich data to which everybody can contribute 
and which everybody can consume. This is a wonderful vision and stands 
in contrast to the data one-way streets of the Silicon Valley. We will 
get there, but it will take more time. In the meanwhile, it is very 
useful for us to learn which parts of the Semantic Web are already ready 
for prime time and currently this prime time happens where the big 
players and the big money are.


IMHO, the key issue that is holding some of our work back is a 
fundamental misunderstanding of what semantics really is and how it 
emerges. Many of us seem to believe that what defines a good use of 
Semantic Web technologies (aka the killer app) involves complicated and 
large ontologies that are axiomatized using the most powerful of our KR 
languages and that make full use of our reasoners. As Kingsley and 
others argued, the real killer apps are already out there. They make use 
of URIs as global identifiers, the idea of linking data, identity 
relations such as sameAs, the tiny bit of reasoning (mostly exploiting 
transitive properties) that enriches and expands search results, and so 
forth.


The Semantic Web should be a thin and ideally transparent communication 
layer between the user (not necessarily restricted to human users) and 
the data and this is where our work has the most impact. To quote Rene 
Descartes (1637) '[As] for logic, its syllogisms and the majority of its 
other precepts are of avail rather in the communication of what we 
already know,[...] than in the investigation of the unknown'. Our 
success will be measured by whether our technologies and methods reduce 
the likelihood of combining data that do not match, by easing the 
retrieval (and publication) of relevant data, and by supporting 
scientists and decision makers in the meaningful (statistical and 
numerical) analysis of data. In contrast (and IMHO), trying to somehow 
fix and precisely, abstractly, and unambiguously define the meaning of 
all sorts of terms in a logical framework, however, is doomed to fail.


What is the 80/20 rule of the Semantic Web? I.e., how much semantics, 
reasoning, and ontologies do we need for 80% gain from semantic 
technologies.


Cheers,
Krzysztof


On 11/11/2015 09:25 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

Hi Kingsley,

While your main points are correct, I disagree with your conclusion.
I guess everything depends on what you mean with "The Semantic Web",
but if I read the article with that title, we're arguably _not_ there.

In that sense, I find it strange you use Google as an example of success.
The fact that the big players are doing something with Linked Data,
is not necessarily a success, as they have much larger means than most of us.

For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.
It's a democratic principle of publishing and consuming data:
everyone can say anything about anything,
but everyone should also be able to consume that data.

At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.
In what sense did we succeed then?

To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
My client that knows my preferences, doesn't share them,
but uses them the find information on the Web for me.
I still hope to see that. Then, we might be there.

Best,

Ruben




--
Krzysztof Janowicz

Geography Department, University of California, Santa Barbara
4830 Ellison Hall, Santa Barbara, CA 93106-4060

Email: j...@geog.ucsb.edu
Webpage: http://ge

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 11 November 2015 at 18:25, Ruben Verborgh 
wrote:

> Hi Kingsley,
>
> While your main points are correct, I disagree with your conclusion.
> I guess everything depends on what you mean with "The Semantic Web",
> but if I read the article with that title, we're arguably _not_ there.
>
> In that sense, I find it strange you use Google as an example of success.
> The fact that the big players are doing something with Linked Data,
> is not necessarily a success, as they have much larger means than most of
> us.
>
> For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.
> It's a democratic principle of publishing and consuming data:
> everyone can say anything about anything,
> but everyone should also be able to consume that data.
>
> At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
> who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.
> In what sense did we succeed then?
>
> To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
> My client that knows my preferences, doesn't share them,
> but uses them the find information on the Web for me.
> I still hope to see that. Then, we might be there.
>

This is how the semantic web works for me today.

In fact I was just in the process of uploading my nutrition data, pedometer
data and readings from smart scale (weight, body fat, BMI, fat rate, heart
rate).

It all integrates now with my social context, my personal data, pretty much
anything I want to add.

So for me this is a reality, thanks to Solid.  That's the part (4) that I
was saying was most exciting! :)


>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>
>

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Ruben Verborgh]

Hi Kingsley,

While your main points are correct, I disagree with your conclusion.
I guess everything depends on what you mean with "The Semantic Web",
but if I read the article with that title, we're arguably _not_ there.

In that sense, I find it strange you use Google as an example of success.
The fact that the big players are doing something with Linked Data,
is not necessarily a success, as they have much larger means than most of us.

For me, the Semantic Web vision has always been about clients.
It's a democratic principle of publishing and consuming data:
everyone can say anything about anything,
but everyone should also be able to consume that data.

At the moment, consuming seems only within reach of the big players,
who have the capacity to do it otherwise anyway.
In what sense did we succeed then?

To me, The Semantic Web is like Google, but then run on my machine.
My client that knows my preferences, doesn't share them,
but uses them the find information on the Web for me.
I still hope to see that. Then, we might be there.

Best,

Ruben

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Gannon Dick]

Hi All,

Melvin had a very good point about the vector *types*.  Some of the types are 
not so benign in implementation [1]. When the meta data sits atop a firewall as 
XML, it is shared, and the DOM is transferred intact. With XHTML this means 
access unbalanced access to the name space subdivisions:

1) "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#head"; (ennoblement)
2) "http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml#body"; (entailment)

The challenges for meta data sets are 1) persistence 2) reliable visibility and 
3) provenance, all as observed from outside the perimeter.

--Gannon

[1] https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA15-314A

On Wed, 11/11/15, Dave Raggett  wrote:

We’re evolving the Web from a Web of pages to a much bigger Web of things.
 
 
 
 On 11 Nov 2015, at 14:55, Melvin Carvalho  wrote:

  Really enjoyed.
 
 I think sem web has evolved on a number vectors
 
 On 11 November 2015 at 15:17, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:

 I think I inadvertently forgot to share this blog post [1] with this community.
 

 

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Dave Raggett]

> On 11 Nov 2015, at 14:55, Melvin Carvalho  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 11 November 2015 at 15:17, Kingsley Idehen  > wrote:
> All,
> 
> I think I inadvertently forgot to share this blog post [1] with this
> community.
> 
> Really enjoyed.
> 
> I think sem web has evolved on a number vectors


A huge potential area for exploitation is the Web of Things where a general 
framework for data and meta is going to be critical for realising the potential 
for open markets of services across many application domains. We’ve launched a 
W3C Interest Group earlier this year and hope to launch a Working Group next 
year. Further background is available in the following presentation.

  http://www.w3.org/2015/11/05-wot-dsr.pdf

We’re evolving the Web from a Web of pages to a much bigger Web of things.

—
   Dave Raggett mailto:d...@w3.org>>

Re: What Happened to the Semantic Web?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 11 November 2015 at 15:17, Kingsley Idehen 
wrote:

> All,
>
> I think I inadvertently forgot to share this blog post [1] with this
> community.
>

Really enjoyed.

I think sem web has evolved on a number vectors

1. Big data and gov, seems to be really embracing linked data.  This goes
hand in hand with enterprise adoption.

2. Academia is producing lots of leading edge research that will feed into
systems for years

3. Web 2.0 is shifting towards more semantics, whether it be schema.org,
search engine knowledge graphs, JSON LD etc.  Only yesterday the well known
web 2.0 system, activity streams, proposed to incorporate JSON LD into the
spec being developed as an equivalent format.  Hydra is also an interesting
approach of dealing with web 2.0 APIs.  So the Semantic Web is really
moving it this area.

4. The thing I'm MOST excited about tho is social.  In particular, Social
Linked Data (Solid) IMHO provides a first class way to deal with users,
read/write operations, privacy and the realtime web, things that have been
largely missing from the semantic web conversation, but central to those
that succeeded in web 1.0 and web 2.0.

https://github.com/solid/solid-spec

I agree this technology has now "arrived" without us noticing it.  Im sure
it's here to stay, but it's up to us what kind of market share it will gain.


>
> Links:
>
> [1]
> http://kidehen.blogspot.cz/2015/09/what-happened-to-semantic-web.html --
> What Happened to the Semantic Web?
> [2] https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/posts/8aMYzBN2FjL -- End of
> RDF Document Format Wars.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Kingsley Idehen
> Founder & CEO
> OpenLink Software
> Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> Personal Weblog 1: http://kidehen.blogspot.com
> Personal Weblog 2: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> Twitter Profile: https://twitter.com/kidehen
> Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/+KingsleyIdehen/about
> LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
> Personal WebID: http://kingsley.idehen.net/dataspace/person/kidehen#this
>
>
>