W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > October 2010

Re: PUBLINK Linked Data Consultancy

From: Michael Smethurst <michael.smethurst@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 Oct 2010 17:57:01 +0100
To: Georgi Kobilarov <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de>, "'Hugh Glaser'" <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, "'Dave Reynolds'" <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, "'Sören Auer'" <auer@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
CC: "'Linking Open Data'" <public-lod@w3.org>, "'SW-forum'" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C8D3BA6D.13892%michael.smethurst@bbc.co.uk>



On 07/10/2010 15:45, "Georgi Kobilarov" <georgi.kobilarov@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hi Michael,

Hiya

> 
>>>>> Insofar PUBLINK rather clears the way for commercial linked data
>>>>> service providers.
>> 
>> By doing what? Which bits does publink do and which bits are left to the
>> commercial sector?
>> 
>> From the lines above it aims to help "people in organizations who want to
>> persuade their decision makers" or persuade decision makers in general
> with
>> demos
>> 
>> Personally I think if that's the intention it's good. I know where to find
> help
>> with data modelling, hosting, data consolidation, existing ontologies,
> content
>> negotiation etc etc. But I don't know where to go for help translating
>> developer understanding to business understanding
>> 
> 
> The intention is good, I agree, but centralizing all of the work into just
> one consortium isn't. One research consortium as the new linked data
> monopolist, that's not the message to send out into the world.

Don't think I ever read *linked data monopolist* into this. And not sure 5
businesses from the whole of europe could reasonably be described as a
monopoly?!?
> 
> Plus, in my opinion there is little of a business model in publishing data
> in itself. There can only be a business model in having other people use
> data, for which publishing is one necessity of course.

Of course. The proof of the pudding is getting a, ahem, "client group" to
eat it and regurgitate something fine

But at the risk of mixing my metaphors it's all a little chicken and egg.
And someone has to convince "the business" that:
(a) opening data will at some point soonish create value (for them)
(b) if they do open data it's worthwhile to do it in a linked data fashion
(by which I don't necessarily mean rdf but do mean not wrapping it into a
separate, controlled api)

Which, in my experience is the harder part than determining whether u
publish linked rdf or some other format
> 
> So the showcases for the business will be on the data consumption side, and
> these demos should be developed by people who know how to build demos and
> showcases. "Persuading" a few more data publishers won't change the
> landscape, so I'd much rather see that money go into e.g. developer/design
> competitions like the Sunlight Foundation is doing in the US.

I agree it won't change the landscape. Publishing data which no-one uses
does no good. But the persuasion has to happen too

[Fwiw it's worth I wonder if PUBLINK wouldn't be better focussing on working
with communities rather than organisations. I'm thinking of the nascent UK
non-government public sector efforts around this (libraries, museums,
galleries etc) which for the moment is more pub meetup than organised
effort. But they are starting to talk about how they can share identifiers,
models and data and could probably use some help to coordinate efforts.
Which still leaves implementation £$£ for the commercial sector

Establishing consumer communities around this is happening in parallel but
they can't make anything from nothing. Tho as you say if there are spare
euros (sunlight foundation style) that would probably help too :-)]
> 
> Cheers,
> Georgi 
> 


http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.
					
Received on Thursday, 7 October 2010 16:57:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:29 UTC