W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > April 2012

Re: [kmgov] Big Data event announcement on-line

From: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 09:26:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAABFPsCAZo9b+5Jdt==8ie2yTmRz09kbF80WipmfjYLg7YKpwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
Cc: public-egov-ig <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, kmgov@list.jpl.nasa.gov
So, can I ask, this Big Data webinar from the White House, it
was archived somewehere, or no?
Thanks so much.

On 3/31/12, Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
> Please forgive the abrupt interruption of threads-- hope it's taken with the
> good intention it is offered.
> Rob Neilson forwarded the Big Data webcast to me but I couldn't make it --
> will try to catch archive in next few days-- it was on one hand good to see
> and on another dissapointing that so little innovation has been achieved in
> improving R&D methods-- especially diffusion. We seem to call for
> collaboration without considering the needs of the would-be collaborators.
> As I shared with a cyber security lead for a major bank this week
> -- "We haven't modernized the R&D structure to current millennium, for
> example, but expect different outcomes"  -- much the same could be said
> about the semantic web. Perhaps if shared publicly some good might accompany
> any arrows.
> In reviewing archives of list thought I would join again as I see some
> issues that are obvious to me that may not be to others given three decades
> on the adoption side of tech-transfer, but also frequently discussing policy
> behind the scene. That we are still calling for agencies to make data public
> after all these years that isn't a security or legal concern is fairly
> amazing to me, and speaks to some of the macro economic challenges we are
> facing as a culture. I fear many are too blinded by our own passion and
> interests.
> "A criticism voiced by detractors of Linked Data suggest that Linked Data
> modeling is too hard or time consuming."
> I thought an exceptionally rare quote on this issue came from James Hendler
> recently that is I think worth investing a bit more time on -- primary
> reason for posting today --
> "Yet, we don't really understand it (web) or know about it scientifically.
> We do not know its economics. It's still hard to guess which things will
> work on which scale and which won't. There are underlined principles of
> confrontation and social concepts that we need to understand better to make
> it grow."
> http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/features/eworld/article2883222.ece?ref=wl_features
> With my many shortcomings, I do have one of the better track records in
> forecasting future successful technologies that scale earlier than my peers,
> especially since the commercialization of the web, although isn't apparent
> by measuring assets--the education may have some value here. Most of this
> knowledge does not reside within institutions -- at least for quite some
> time, which leads to let's call it poor data quality in that assumptions are
> quite often wrong and then scaled widely. The incentives to share are
> similar to whistleblowers prior to reform and reward.
> The important summary I'd like to share which does not see enough discussion
> in public, is that those economic issues involved are more complex than the
> technology or they would likely have been resolved already. In semantics
> actually the technology is far simpler than the economics IMO. For example
> we identified in my small incubator and lab way back in 1998 that data
> standards for provenance were necessary to create the functionality required
> for most of the economically sustainable products and services, yet those
> standards are just now maturing. First we must achieve the min level of
> complexity to incentivize and sustain economics before the difficult task of
> simplification in commercialization can do its essential task. Exceptionally
> challenging given the conflicting business model of the web and the goal of
> most of the semantic web community.
> Due to similar patience and persistant efforts on display here, the issue of
> alignment of interests in IT, and more recently in neural network
> economics-- alignment is slowly but surely becoming better understood.
> Suffice to say that it's no accident that linked data and associated tools
> are "too hard and time consuming" (such a general statement doesn't deal
> with the economic conflicts of course -- LD is perhaps not difficult for
> those compensated well for the heavy lifting, but rather almost everyone
> else who must pay for the pleasure). I can speak directly to part of this in
> a considerable recent effort in tool building -- insufficient economic
> incentives have existed to compensate the relatively few people who have
> demonstrated the ability to build such tools, and they are otherwise quite
> busy and in demand of course-- the talent wars are real and strongly favor
> those with some conflict. On many occasions I and others would have liked to
> have help solve this problem but we have faced massive disincentives to do
> so, especially on the consumer web (realize some don't like seperating
> consumer versus enterprise in speaking about the web, but one must if
> speaking with scientific credibility on economic incentives and modeling,
> which influences adoption).
> What many advocates don't understand, apparently, is that when we insist on
> free and open data for everything our actions directly conflict with our
> passion for adoption of a more intelligent web. We live in a world of finite
> resources-- indeed shrinking in much of the world, and all incumbents have
> some economic conflict and misalignment with any innovation-- including
> government, academia, and business. Of course that's why most technical
> progress is considered disruptive -- any innovation of importance in a
> mature society threatens important, entrenched, and powerful entities. I
> can't overstate how critical this is in private conversations, some
> protected by NDA.  Indeed I am sometimes surprised by the progress given the
> perception of the threat as it has been communicated to me--speaks in part
> to soft power and diplomacy-- perhaps threat of regulation of some kind even
> if not direct.
> It might surprise some to hear from one of the sources that quite a bit of
> the business community in SV did not want an advertising model during the
> commercialization of the web -- simply because it was fully understood by
> some that it would be limiting to what it could support in terms of economic
> activity and indeed functionality.  Michael Dell was recently quoted for
> example that the IT industry is a $3 trillion industry (annual revs), but
> even though most of the focus and hype is on the consumer market the
> consumer market is only about 1/10th the total. I haven't seen the same
> research so can't confirm, but for many years I have warned about the
> limitations of free and the macro negative impact it will have on jobs,
> economics, and perhaps more direct to this topic -- data quality. Some of
> the negative economic impact is degrading the ability of sponsors to fund
> solutions. The consequences of free data that represents increasing amounts
> of knowledge also represents an enormous number of jobs and a significant
> portion of especially service economies like the U.S. -- some have guilds,
> others do not, and in some cases ultimately it may not matter if the sponsor
> is illiquid, but the profound economic impact and therefore limitations are
> clearly not understood. I believe that it's the responsibility of any
> advocate to fully understand the impact of their actions -- so do many NGOs
> that have evolved their thinking on sustainable economics relative to their
> mission, becoming leading experts on dissincentives and rebalancing
> disequalibrium -- worth consideration -- we are only recently seeing signs
> of similar maturity in computing.
> I submit that it's not necessary to compromise much if at all on data
> standards if some informed comprimise is made on economic modeling and
> behavior, but we must first understand the impact of our own behavior and
> ideology--and then negotiate from a position of enlightenment -- that's
> where the semantic web community quite often appears self-destructive from
> close observation (less so in these archives than elsewhere). One of the
> reasons I don't engage more in groups and conferences is to maintain some
> perspective-- another is frankly at times it has been too painful to
> observe.
> So in our case we had little choice but to focus on the enterprise where a
> sustainable model exists, but even with fairly powerful economic incentives
> inside many organizations, adoption has been longer and more difficult
> journey of evolution than previous generations of technology. For what it's
> worth I think we are seeing a bit of a reversal of the consumerization trend
> for semantics that is more similar to three decades ago. That is to say that
> we may see more advanced tools developed in the enterprise market that may
> help overcome ease of use and modeling issues on the unrestricted web.
> Not intending or even inviting a debate, but rather contributing part of
> what has been very expensive education and considerable sacrifice by those
> around me, although welcome constructive private discussion.
> To those old friends and colleagues who have continued all these years to
> work towards a more functional global economy through computing standards--
> and my old friends in KMGov (esp. volunteers)-- thank you and continued best
> wishes. -- MM
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 14:26:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:46 UTC