Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 6 July 2016 at 17:22, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:

> All,
>
> Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large.
>
> Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this community has in
> regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked Data driven
> Smart Agents out there?
>
> Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots provides a great
> opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic Web build
> using Linked Open Data.
>

Let's think about an architecture for this.

At the heart of the smart agent I think you need a priority based queue of
jobs.

There will be a number of interfaces to read and write to this queue,
ideally one of which is HTTP.

It should be able to discover other nodes and talk to them in a common
language (Linked Data)

It should be able to add jobs and request jobs from other nodes.

A incentives based system should help prioritze the jobs (this is exactly
the function of bitcoin btw) -- this can also be linked data based

The bots should be able to interact with knowledge bases (their own and
remote) -- querying, syncing, posting

The bots should do useful things like distributed multi media search,
entertainment, unexpected discovery, advocacy, games etc.  Simple demos
should mock this up.

The bots should run anywhere, easily down loadable, as an app etc.

Ultimately the smart agents should generate revenue for those that have
opted in.  Providing a basic income for anyone that wants it.


>
>
> Links:
>
> [1]
>
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2FSmartAgent%23this&distinct=1
> -- Smart Agent Notes collated over time.
>
>
> --
> 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: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Colin Maudry]

I'm about to apply to speak at SemWeb.pro, a conference that takes place 
in Paris in autumn.


It unfortunately mostly is in French, but it's mostly people from the 
industry and the government who speak. I remember seeing only a handful 
of researchers... and last year Phil Archer did the keynote (in English)!


http://semweb.pro/

Colin

On 07/07/2016 07:51 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

Hi Juan,

Seems like we mostly agree—short remarks below.


One thing is science. Another is engineering.

Perhaps we need Semantic Web Engineering conferences then as well!


If we don't know the right evaluation metrics (I agree with you that we don't), 
then that is the current challenge we, as a semantic web scientific community, 
have to tackle.

Indeed, but I've found the scientific community to be not so open to new 
evaluation metrics either. There is insufficient agreement on (and too limited 
knowledge of) the right scientific methodology to tackle such novel problems.


It shouldn't discourage you... on the contrary, it should encourage you to 
identify novel ways to evaluate what you are doing and convince the community 
why it is important.

The trouble is you don't have to convince the entire community (with whom you 
can have an open dialog), but a tiny set of anonymous reviewers (for whom the 
known paths are often easier to judge).
My remark was precisely that convincing is hard once you move away from the 
known paths.

So the scientific community, which is a large part of the total Semantic Web 
community, might in that sense be hampering real novelty—from science and 
engineering alike, whichever might be the difference.

Best,

Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Paul Houle]

I would look at the history of the conventional web client as a parallel to
the "semantic web."

Not long after Netscape,  it was clear that a "personal web crawler" was a
possible thing that a person could use to answer some question.  Rather
than being dependent on InfoSeek or Altavista,  you could get a much deeper
understanding than you get from Google which is so oriented to P@1.

There are things like w3mir and httrack,  and wizards code up task-focused
web crawlers all the time,  but you don't see a lot in the way for tools
for ordinary computer users to say,  crawl out the web site of some place
like BlackRock and make a list of all the investment funds they run.

Part of that is that a webcrawler is a weapon of mass destruction,  a good
client can pitch more than an many servers can catch,  so the easier
products like this are to use the more complaints you get.

Web browsers have come a long way in a lot of ways but the mechanisms for
(1) bookmarks and (2) history are not good enough,  see:  so even if you
look at that case there is plenty of data on the client,  you are not GET
spamming people,  etc.

Also:  really what is the distinction of "client" and "server?"  It is
totally practical to run (say) a Windows application on a Windows tablet or
run the same application on a $10 an hour server at AWS over Remote Desktop
protocol and then the "client" could be Linux or an Amiga or something so
long as the network is fast.




On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Krzysztof Janowicz 
wrote:

> As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
>> at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
>> This discourages working on such themes.
>>
>> Hence, I see much talent and time going to
>> incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
>> but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
>>
>
> Yes! I could not agree more. On the other hand, this is all about finding
> the right balance as we also do not want to have tons of 'ideas' papers
> without any substantial content or proof of concept. I remember that there
> was an ISWC session some years ago that tried to introduce such a 'bold
> ideas' track.
>
> Krzysztof
>
> On 07/06/2016 09:38 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This is a very important question for our community,
>> given that smart agents once were an important theme.
>> Actually, the main difference we could bring with the SemWeb
>> is that our clients could be decentralized
>> and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.
>>
>> One of the main problems I see is how our community
>> (now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
>> receives submissions of novel work.
>> We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view,
>> where anything that can be measured with numbers
>> is largely favored over anything that cannot.
>>
>> Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
>> we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
>> As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
>> at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
>> This discourages working on such themes.
>>
>> Hence, I see much talent and time going to
>> incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
>> but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
>> More than a decade of SemWeb research
>> has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
>> but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.
>>
>> So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
>> how can we as a community be more open
>> to novel and disruptive technologies?
>>
>> 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://geog.ucsb.edu/~jano/
> Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>
>
>


-- 
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: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Hugh Glaser]

Ah, ’twas always thus, in every field I know.
To put it bluntly, that is because much research is about getting papers 
published, not about moving the field on.


Functional programming (I used to be functional):

David Turner (he with a brain the size of a planet) said that his application 
of combinators to functional language implementation had “cost 10 years of 
wasted PhD students”.
This was because they had all striven to improve in tiny ways on the original 
implementation.
Of course most failed, as it had sprung perfectly-formed from his brain, and 
more importantly been perfectly-engineered by him into the system†.
But even when they succeeded, the increment didn't amount to a hill of beans.

And again, watching paper after paper purporting to improve some theoretical 
upper-bound on execution of some variant of the λ-calculus, which in fact could 
never be reached without immense execution overheads, was pretty depressing, in 
terms of wasted research time.

Of course, small increments are not always useless. In Operational Research 
they are bread and butter. But that is because it is a mature field with clear 
applications, and if you can improve a Search/Optimisation technique by a 
fraction of a percent, you might save millions on the billions cost of 
something.

In the first decades of a field, it is highly unlikely that incremental change 
will be significant in the long run, not least because entirely new methods and 
techniques will be discovered, making the base ones redundant, and rendering 
the increment moot.

†One of my favourite comments was in the garbage collector of David's C 
implementation of his SK-reduction machine: "Now follow everything on the C 
stack that looks like a pointer". :-)


> On 8 Jul 2016, at 05:01, Ruben Verborgh  wrote:
> 
> HI Krzysztof,
> 
>> this is all about finding the right balance
> 
> Definitely—but I have the feeling the balance
> is currently tipped very much to one side
> (and perhaps not the side that delivers
> the most urgent components for the SemWeb).
> 
>> as we also do not want to have tons of 'ideas' 
>> papers without any substantial content or proof of concept
> 
> Mere ideas would indeed not be sufficient;
> but even papers with substantial content
> and/or a proof of concept will have a difficult time
> getting accepted if there is no evaluation
> that satisfies the reviewers.
> (And, lacking a framework to evaluate evaluations,
> I see people typically choosing for things they know,
> hence why incremental research gets accepted easily.)
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Ruben Verborgh]

HI Krzysztof,

> this is all about finding the right balance

Definitely—but I have the feeling the balance
is currently tipped very much to one side
(and perhaps not the side that delivers
the most urgent components for the SemWeb).

> as we also do not want to have tons of 'ideas' 
> papers without any substantial content or proof of concept

Mere ideas would indeed not be sufficient;
but even papers with substantial content
and/or a proof of concept will have a difficult time
getting accepted if there is no evaluation
that satisfies the reviewers.
(And, lacking a framework to evaluate evaluations,
I see people typically choosing for things they know,
hence why incremental research gets accepted easily.)

Best,

Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Krzysztof Janowicz]

As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
This discourages working on such themes.

Hence, I see much talent and time going to
incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
but not necessarily as ground-breaking.


Yes! I could not agree more. On the other hand, this is all about 
finding the right balance as we also do not want to have tons of 'ideas' 
papers without any substantial content or proof of concept. I remember 
that there was an ISWC session some years ago that tried to introduce 
such a 'bold ideas' track.


Krzysztof

On 07/06/2016 09:38 AM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:

Hi,

This is a very important question for our community,
given that smart agents once were an important theme.
Actually, the main difference we could bring with the SemWeb
is that our clients could be decentralized
and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.

One of the main problems I see is how our community
(now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
receives submissions of novel work.
We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view,
where anything that can be measured with numbers
is largely favored over anything that cannot.

Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
This discourages working on such themes.

Hence, I see much talent and time going to
incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
More than a decade of SemWeb research
has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.

So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
how can we as a community be more open
to novel and disruptive technologies?

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

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 7 July 2016 at 20:49, Juan Sequeda  wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Ruben Verborgh 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Juan,
>>
>> Seems like we mostly agree—short remarks below.
>>
>> > One thing is science. Another is engineering.
>>
>> Perhaps we need Semantic Web Engineering conferences then as well!
>>
>
> That's why you have developer conferences, etc. ISWC this year had a
> Applications track. And it doesn't have to be semantic web specific.
>
>
>>
>> > If we don't know the right evaluation metrics (I agree with you that we
>> don't), then that is the current challenge we, as a semantic web scientific
>> community, have to tackle.
>>
>> Indeed, but I've found the scientific community to be not so open to new
>> evaluation metrics either. There is insufficient agreement on (and too
>> limited knowledge of) the right scientific methodology to tackle such novel
>> problems.
>>
>
> Well, I don't know what you have proposed. But it seems that you haven't
> made a convincing argument :P (if you want to discuss offline what you are
> doing, send me an email)
>
>
>>
>> > It shouldn't discourage you... on the contrary, it should encourage you
>> to identify novel ways to evaluate what you are doing and convince the
>> community why it is important.
>>
>> The trouble is you don't have to convince the entire community (with whom
>> you can have an open dialog), but a tiny set of anonymous reviewers (for
>> whom the known paths are often easier to judge).
>>
>
> Paper reviewing... that is different topic I don't want to get into here.
>
>
>> My remark was precisely that convincing is hard once you move away from
>> the known paths.
>>
>> So the scientific community, which is a large part of the total Semantic
>> Web community, might in that sense be hampering real novelty—from science
>> and engineering alike, whichever might be the difference.
>>
>
> There is a clear difference between Science and Engineering. That is my
> point.  Science is about understanding what is unknown. In this case, it is
> not well known how to evaluate new types of systems. That is what needs to
> be studied. We need to figure out how to evaluate and evaluation. It is a
> bit meta. Jim Hendler stated this 7 years ago and to the best of my
> knowledge, this is an area that hasn't been tackled (PhD thesis anybody?)
>
> If your goal is to get something out there and for it to be used, then why
> do you bother spending time publishing papers. Look at all the open source
> projects changing the world, with very little to no scientific
> publications.
>
> Just do what makes you happy and be the best at it. Strive for excellence!
> I know you are :)
>

I think it would be nice to have a common ground across the field.  e.g.

- Everyone has a profile page that is machine readable (so many people
still dont!)

- Beginning with that profile page, cross origin links are made, to create
new  connections, with friends, colleagues, people, places, things.

- The social graph is both browsable and writable to, so that changes can
be made, propagated and viewed by others.

- Each individual research project, feeds into this graph, augments it,
improves it, creates new possibilities.

In short, why not spend 20+% of our time using the semantic web in
collaboration with others to make it come alive?


>
>
>> Best,
>>
>> Ruben
>
>
>

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Juan Sequeda]

On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 12:51 PM, Ruben Verborgh 
wrote:

> Hi Juan,
>
> Seems like we mostly agree—short remarks below.
>
> > One thing is science. Another is engineering.
>
> Perhaps we need Semantic Web Engineering conferences then as well!
>

That's why you have developer conferences, etc. ISWC this year had a
Applications track. And it doesn't have to be semantic web specific.


>
> > If we don't know the right evaluation metrics (I agree with you that we
> don't), then that is the current challenge we, as a semantic web scientific
> community, have to tackle.
>
> Indeed, but I've found the scientific community to be not so open to new
> evaluation metrics either. There is insufficient agreement on (and too
> limited knowledge of) the right scientific methodology to tackle such novel
> problems.
>

Well, I don't know what you have proposed. But it seems that you haven't
made a convincing argument :P (if you want to discuss offline what you are
doing, send me an email)


>
> > It shouldn't discourage you... on the contrary, it should encourage you
> to identify novel ways to evaluate what you are doing and convince the
> community why it is important.
>
> The trouble is you don't have to convince the entire community (with whom
> you can have an open dialog), but a tiny set of anonymous reviewers (for
> whom the known paths are often easier to judge).
>

Paper reviewing... that is different topic I don't want to get into here.


> My remark was precisely that convincing is hard once you move away from
> the known paths.
>
> So the scientific community, which is a large part of the total Semantic
> Web community, might in that sense be hampering real novelty—from science
> and engineering alike, whichever might be the difference.
>

There is a clear difference between Science and Engineering. That is my
point.  Science is about understanding what is unknown. In this case, it is
not well known how to evaluate new types of systems. That is what needs to
be studied. We need to figure out how to evaluate and evaluation. It is a
bit meta. Jim Hendler stated this 7 years ago and to the best of my
knowledge, this is an area that hasn't been tackled (PhD thesis anybody?)

If your goal is to get something out there and for it to be used, then why
do you bother spending time publishing papers. Look at all the open source
projects changing the world, with very little to no scientific
publications.

Just do what makes you happy and be the best at it. Strive for excellence!
I know you are :)


> Best,
>
> Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Ruben Verborgh]

Hi Juan,

Seems like we mostly agree—short remarks below.

> One thing is science. Another is engineering. 

Perhaps we need Semantic Web Engineering conferences then as well!

> If we don't know the right evaluation metrics (I agree with you that we 
> don't), then that is the current challenge we, as a semantic web scientific 
> community, have to tackle.

Indeed, but I've found the scientific community to be not so open to new 
evaluation metrics either. There is insufficient agreement on (and too limited 
knowledge of) the right scientific methodology to tackle such novel problems.

> It shouldn't discourage you... on the contrary, it should encourage you to 
> identify novel ways to evaluate what you are doing and convince the community 
> why it is important. 

The trouble is you don't have to convince the entire community (with whom you 
can have an open dialog), but a tiny set of anonymous reviewers (for whom the 
known paths are often easier to judge).
My remark was precisely that convincing is hard once you move away from the 
known paths.

So the scientific community, which is a large part of the total Semantic Web 
community, might in that sense be hampering real novelty—from science and 
engineering alike, whichever might be the difference.

Best,

Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Juan Sequeda]

Ruben,

One thing is science. Another is engineering.

Part of the scientific process is defining an experiment and doing the
evaluation. If we don't know the right evaluation metrics (I agree with you
that we don't), then that is the current challenge we, as a semantic web
scientific community, have to tackle. It shouldn't discourage you... on the
contrary, it should encourage you to identify novel ways to evaluate what
you are doing and convince the community why it is important.

In my opinion, evaluation of systems on the web is different that what the
CS community has been used to (CS is a young science). Evaluation has been
on run time, space consumed, precision, recall, sound, completeness. On the
web, those may not be the aspects we want to measures. In the words of Jim
Hendler:

“You want a good thesis? IR is based on precision and recall and the minute
you add semantics, it is a meaningless feature. Logic is based on soundness
and completeness. We don’t want soundness and completeness. We want a few
good answers quickly.”

– Prof. James A. Hendler, 2009, on the topic of answering queries over the
Semantic Web.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbmMxzOeZ-4

Here is a short position paper that Olaf Hartig and I wrote 5 years ago
(time flies when you are having fun): Towards a Query Language for the Web
of Data (A Vision Paper). http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3017

My 2cts



--
Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
+1-575-SEQ-UEDA
www.juansequeda.com

On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 11:38 AM, Ruben Verborgh 
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> This is a very important question for our community,
> given that smart agents once were an important theme.
> Actually, the main difference we could bring with the SemWeb
> is that our clients could be decentralized
> and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.
>
> One of the main problems I see is how our community
> (now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
> receives submissions of novel work.
> We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view,
> where anything that can be measured with numbers
> is largely favored over anything that cannot.
>
> Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
> we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
> As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
> at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
> This discourages working on such themes.
>
> Hence, I see much talent and time going to
> incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
> but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
> More than a decade of SemWeb research
> has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
> but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.
>
> So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
> how can we as a community be more open
> to novel and disruptive technologies?
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben
>

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Gannon Dick]

Hi Ruben,

On Wed, 7/6/16, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
"Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large."

bullet point - Wants are getting a little ahead of wishes, as usual :(

What people already believe about Linked Data is that {an SQL  right outer join 
of Category Name Elements on Topic Name Elements in a homogeneous name space - 
e.g. counts grouped by Category Name} is a unique vector. SQL has fewer shades 
of promiscuity than SPARQL.

This is not a commercial deal breaker ... rather:  a long ago verbal contract, 
possibly signed under duress, with your Second Grade Teacher.  When she said 
"2+2=4" although substantiation would forthcoming, her work product was 
guaranteed against material defects.  The contract is still in effect, 
world-wide.  No Nobel Prizes to be had here.  Wolfgang Pauli already won - The 
Pauli Exclusion Principle means that "2+2=5" is, in Pauli's words, "Not Even 
Wrong !!!".  Little justice in the prize judging, BTW.  Nuns (I had Dominicans) 
have been communicating the same message for centuries. Mistakes were made.  
Knuckles jumped in front of wooden rulers on a regular basis, etc. :)

Ruben ... 
"One of the main problems I see is how our community  (now particularly 
thinking about the scientific subgroup) receives submissions of novel work."

I think ...
Maybe the problem is the identification of "novel work".  Interoperability can 
depend on the novel nature of the work or Induced Knuckle PTSD. Just a guess, 
but not many Software Patents mention Nuns or knuckles.  Somebody might do a 
survey though.

Ruben ...
" We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view, where anything 
that can be measured with numbers is largely favored over anything that cannot."

I think ...
True enough.
In addition ...
1) The arbiters of taste (paying customers) went to Second Grade, and in 
subsequent steps the first professional trick they learned was writing a annual 
balance sheet. Content: (12 Monthly Values) (4 Quarterly sums) (1 Annual sum)

2) All of us folk, OTOH, may have encountered von Neumann Architecture first.  
A balance sheet is not von Neuman Architecture.  The 17 pigeon holes are 
"smart" or so you evangelize, but all will be for naught if you relabel the 
pigeon holes.   Actually, the birds won't care, but you will unsettle the 
pigeons mightily because they consider von Neumann Architecture a disruptive 
technology, and always will. 


It just seems to me that - knowing that web discovery is prone at least 17 
pigeon hole misdemeanors and probably all seven deadly sins as well -  it is 
wise to proceed stepwise before accepting the web of things identification of 
reputable brands of truth.

Some English guy said it a whole lot better, BTW ...
“When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, 
however improbable, must be the truth.”  ― Arthur Conan Doyle, The Case-Book of 
Sherlock Holmes

--Gannon

--------------------
On Wed, 7/6/16, Ruben Verborgh  wrote:

 Subject: Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?
 To: "Kingsley Idehen" 
 Cc: "public-lod" 
 Date: Wednesday, July 6, 2016, 11:38 AM
 
 Hi,
 
 This is a very important question for our community,
 given that smart agents once were an important theme.
 Actually, the main difference we could bring with the
 SemWeb
 is that our clients could be decentralized
 and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.
 
 One of the main problems I see is how our community
 (now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
 receives submissions of novel work.
 We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented
 view,
 where anything that can be measured with numbers
 is largely favored over anything that cannot.
 
 Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
 we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
 As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
 at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
 This discourages working on such themes.
 
 Hence, I see much talent and time going to
 incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
 but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
 More than a decade of SemWeb research
 has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
 but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.
 
 So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
 how can we as a community be more open
 to novel and disruptive technologies?
 
 Best,
 
 Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 7/6/16 2:57 PM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 6 July 2016 at 20:49, Kingsley Idehen  > wrote:
>
> On 7/6/16 11:38 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 6 July 2016 at 17:22, Kingsley Idehen > > wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry
>> at large.
>>
>> Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this
>> community has in
>> regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked
>> Data driven
>> Smart Agents out there?
>>
>> Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots
>> provides a great
>> opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic
>> Web build
>> using Linked Open Data.
>>
>>
>> I have started working on an early prototype using the kue[1] library
>>
>> Source code: https://github.com/solid-live/solidbot
>>
>> I also think this is the way forward, and would like to see such
>> bots cooperating using LOD. 
>>
>> My intuition tells me that knowledge is valuable.  Smart bots
>> enable turning an inert hard drive into something of value, but
>> for the bot owner, and their connections.  I have a vague hope
>> that this value can be, at some point, converted into a kind of
>> basic income, for those who opt in.
>>
>> [1] https://github.com/Automattic/kue
>
> Hi Melvin,
>
> I will certainly take a look, pronto !
>
>
> Im experimenting with this mainly on my local box.  But I'll put
> together a documentation and demo.  I think I can demo a distributed
> linked data search engine.


Melvin,

I don't know if you are aware of Hubot [1]? Basically, its a platform
that certainly looks interesting from the following perspectives:

[1] Bound to multiple chat services

[2] Extensible using scripts.

Links:

[1] https://hubot.github.com/docs/


-- 
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: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 6 July 2016 at 20:49, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:

> On 7/6/16 11:38 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
>
> On 6 July 2016 at 17:22, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:
>
>> All,
>>
>> Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large.
>>
>> Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this community has in
>> regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked Data driven
>> Smart Agents out there?
>>
>> Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots provides a great
>> opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic Web build
>> using Linked Open Data.
>>
>
> I have started working on an early prototype using the kue[1] library
>
> Source code: https://github.com/solid-live/solidbot
>
> I also think this is the way forward, and would like to see such bots
> cooperating using LOD.
>
> My intuition tells me that knowledge is valuable.  Smart bots enable
> turning an inert hard drive into something of value, but for the bot owner,
> and their connections.  I have a vague hope that this value can be, at some
> point, converted into a kind of basic income, for those who opt in.
>
> [1] https://github.com/Automattic/kue
>
>
> Hi Melvin,
>
> I will certainly take a look, pronto !
>

Im experimenting with this mainly on my local box.  But I'll put together a
documentation and demo.  I think I can demo a distributed linked data
search engine.


>
> --
> 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: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 7/6/16 12:38 PM, Ruben Verborgh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is a very important question for our community,
> given that smart agents once were an important theme.
> Actually, the main difference we could bring with the SemWeb
> is that our clients could be decentralized
> and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.
>
> One of the main problems I see is how our community
> (now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
> receives submissions of novel work.
> We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view,
> where anything that can be measured with numbers
> is largely favored over anything that cannot.
>
> Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
> we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
> As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
> at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
> This discourages working on such themes.
>
> Hence, I see much talent and time going to
> incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
> but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
> More than a decade of SemWeb research
> has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
> but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.
>
> So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
> how can we as a community be more open
> to novel and disruptive technologies?
>
> Best,
>
> Ruben

Hi Ruben,

On my part, I am really pinging the community (due to deafening silence)
about a pendulum swing back to its fundamental strengths--structured
data (represented as sentences) endowed with machine- and
human-comprehensible entity relationship type semantics.

Eons ago (Semweb time) use of various Bots (Jenni [1], Micro Turtle [2],
Phenny [3], and friends) on IRC channels was the norm. Those agents were
early Semantic Web utility demos confined to IRC rather than the broader
Web.

Twitter and Slack are just pretty looking modern variants of what IRC
delivers, as most folks in this community certainly already know.

Today, we have an opportunity to rehash, recast, port, or build new bots
performing the very same tasks, but across a Web of (Linked) Data.

Fundamentally, mercurial GUI oriented UI/UX should be less of a hurdle
to Linked Data and Semantic Web utility showcases. Why? Because bot
interactions are predominantly about conversational interfaces that
ultimately depend on the ability to process information encoded using
sentences, and In RDF (the Language) we have the ultimate tool for
compact sentence representation :)

Links

[1]
http://www.zoharbabin.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/irc-log-kc-search-module.png
-- Jenni bot

[2]
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/63/25/37/632537949aeea66cbf7aa8fba73c9e46.jpg
-- Micro Turtle Bot

[3]
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d1/e9/6a/d1e96adb4fcb720659db75aaa3e38b92.jpg
-- Phenny Bot.

-- 
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: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Kingsley Idehen]

On 7/6/16 11:38 AM, Melvin Carvalho wrote:
>
>
> On 6 July 2016 at 17:22, Kingsley Idehen  > wrote:
>
> All,
>
> Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large.
>
> Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this community
> has in
> regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked Data driven
> Smart Agents out there?
>
> Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots provides a
> great
> opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic Web build
> using Linked Open Data.
>
>
> I have started working on an early prototype using the kue[1] library
>
> Source code: https://github.com/solid-live/solidbot
>
> I also think this is the way forward, and would like to see such bots
> cooperating using LOD. 
>
> My intuition tells me that knowledge is valuable.  Smart bots enable
> turning an inert hard drive into something of value, but for the bot
> owner, and their connections.  I have a vague hope that this value can
> be, at some point, converted into a kind of basic income, for those
> who opt in.
>
> [1] https://github.com/Automattic/kue

Hi Melvin,

I will certainly take a look, pronto !


-- 
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: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Ruben Verborgh]

Hi,

This is a very important question for our community,
given that smart agents once were an important theme.
Actually, the main difference we could bring with the SemWeb
is that our clients could be decentralized
and actually run on the client side, in contrast to others.

One of the main problems I see is how our community
(now particularly thinking about the scientific subgroup)
receives submissions of novel work.
We have evolved into an extremely quantitative-oriented view,
where anything that can be measured with numbers
is largely favored over anything that cannot.

Given that the smart agents / bots field is quite new,
we don't know the right evaluation metrics yet.
As such, it is hard to publish a paper on this
at any of the main venues (ISWC / ESWC / …).
This discourages working on such themes.

Hence, I see much talent and time going to
incremental research, which is easy to evaluate well,
but not necessarily as ground-breaking.
More than a decade of SemWeb research
has mostly brought us intelligent servers,
but not yet the intelligent clients we wanted.

So perhaps we should phrase the question more broadly:
how can we as a community be more open
to novel and disruptive technologies?

Best,

Ruben

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Pieter Colpaert]

Hi Kingsley,

Not a perfect answer to your question as it is in a very early stage, 
yet I'm trying to develop an intelligent agent to give you route 
planning results across transit networks: Linked Connections [1]. By 
following links and discovering various other data sources, it can take 
into account user-specific requirements. E.g., wheelchair accessibility 
information about stations or buses from other sources can be taken into 
account without the server itself exposing this functionality.


[1] http://linkedconnections.org

Kind regards,

Pieter

On 06-07-16 17:22, Kingsley Idehen wrote:

All,

Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large.

Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this community has in
regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked Data driven
Smart Agents out there?

Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots provides a great
opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic Web build
using Linked Open Data.


Links:

[1]
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2FSmartAgent%23this&distinct=1
-- Smart Agent Notes collated over time.




--
+32486747122
Linked Open Transport Data researcher
Ghent University - Data Science Lab - iMinds

Board of Directors Open Knowledge Belgium
http://openknowledge.be

Open Transport working group coordinator at Open Knowledge International
http://transport.okfn.org

Re: Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Melvin Carvalho]

On 6 July 2016 at 17:22, Kingsley Idehen  wrote:

> All,
>
> Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large.
>
> Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this community has in
> regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked Data driven
> Smart Agents out there?
>
> Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots provides a great
> opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic Web build
> using Linked Open Data.
>

I have started working on an early prototype using the kue[1] library

Source code: https://github.com/solid-live/solidbot

I also think this is the way forward, and would like to see such bots
cooperating using LOD.

My intuition tells me that knowledge is valuable.  Smart bots enable
turning an inert hard drive into something of value, but for the bot owner,
and their connections.  I have a vague hope that this value can be, at some
point, converted into a kind of basic income, for those who opt in.

[1] https://github.com/Automattic/kue


>
>
> Links:
>
> [1]
>
> http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2FSmartAgent%23this&distinct=1
> -- Smart Agent Notes collated over time.
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>

Where are the Linked Data Driven Smart Agents (Bots) ?

[Kingsley Idehen]

All,

Smart Agents and Bots are now hot topics across the industry at large.

Bearing in mind years of knowledge and experience this community has in
regards to Bots and Smart Agents [1], are there any Linked Data driven
Smart Agents out there?

Personally, I believe this new wave of interest in Bots provides a great
opportunity to showcase the value proposition of a Semantic Web build
using Linked Open Data. 


Links:

[1]
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftwitter.com%2Fhashtag%2FSmartAgent%23this&distinct=1
-- Smart Agent Notes collated over time.


-- 
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