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

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

From: Thomas, George (OS/ASA/OCIO/OEA) <George.Thomas1@hhs.gov>
Date: Sun, 1 Apr 2012 10:32:01 -0400
To: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>, Mark Montgomery <markm@kyield.com>
CC: "W3C (All)" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>, "kmgov@list.jpl.nasa.gov" <kmgov@list.jpl.nasa.gov>
Message-ID: <CB9DDF11.35234%george.thomas1@hhs.gov>


On 4/1/12 10:26 AM, "Daniel Smith" <opened.to@gmail.com> wrote:

>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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> on the adoption side of tech-transfer, but also frequently discussing
>> behind the scene. That we are still calling for agencies to make data
>> 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
>> 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
>> modeling is too hard or time consuming."
>> I thought an exceptionally rare quote on this issue came from James
>> 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
>> 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
>> it grow."
>> With my many shortcomings, I do have one of the better track records in
>> forecasting future successful technologies that scale earlier than my
>> especially since the commercialization of the web, although isn't
>> by measuring assets--the education may have some value here. Most of
>> 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
>> in public, is that those economic issues involved are more complex than
>> technology or they would likely have been resolved already. In semantics
>> actually the technology is far simpler than the economics IMO. For
>> we identified in my small incubator and lab way back in 1998 that data
>> standards for provenance were necessary to create the functionality
>> for most of the economically sustainable products and services, yet
>> 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.
>> 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
>> 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
>> busy and in demand of course-- the talent wars are real and strongly
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> resources-- indeed shrinking in much of the world, and all incumbents
>> 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
>> to soft power and diplomacy-- perhaps threat of regulation of some kind
>> if not direct.
>> It might surprise some to hear from one of the sources that quite a bit
>> the business community in SV did not want an advertising model during
>> commercialization of the web -- simply because it was fully understood
>> some that it would be limiting to what it could support in terms of
>> activity and indeed functionality.  Michael Dell was recently quoted for
>> example that the IT industry is a $3 trillion industry (annual revs),
>> 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
>> the negative economic impact is degrading the ability of sponsors to
>> solutions. The consequences of free data that represents increasing
>> of knowledge also represents an enormous number of jobs and a
>> portion of especially service economies like the U.S. -- some have
>> others do not, and in some cases ultimately it may not matter if the
>> is illiquid, but the profound economic impact and therefore limitations
>> clearly not understood. I believe that it's the responsibility of any
>> advocate to fully understand the impact of their actions -- so do many
>> that have evolved their thinking on sustainable economics relative to
>> mission, becoming leading experts on dissincentives and rebalancing
>> disequalibrium -- worth consideration -- we are only recently seeing
>> 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
>> ideology--and then negotiate from a position of enlightenment -- that's
>> where the semantic web community quite often appears self-destructive
>> 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
>> 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
>> inside many organizations, adoption has been longer and more difficult
>> journey of evolution than previous generations of technology. For what
>> worth I think we are seeing a bit of a reversal of the consumerization
>> for semantics that is more similar to three decades ago. That is to say
>> we may see more advanced tools developed in the enterprise market that
>> 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
>> around me, although welcome constructive private discussion.
>> To those old friends and colleagues who have continued all these years
>> work towards a more functional global economy through computing
>> and my old friends in KMGov (esp. volunteers)-- thank you and continued
>> wishes. -- MM
Received on Sunday, 1 April 2012 14:32:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 1 April 2012 14:32:32 GMT