Re: Cost/Benefit Anyone? Re: Vote for my Semantic Web presentation at SXSW

Kingsley,

 From below:

> This critical value only materializes via appropriate "context 
> lenses". For decision makers it is always via opportunity costs.  If 
> someone else is eating you lunch by disrupting your market you simply 
> have to respond. Thus, on this side of the fence its better to focus 
> on eating lunch rather than warning about the possibility of doing so, 
> or outlining how it could be done. Just do it! 

I appreciate the sentiment, "Just do it!" as my close friend Jack Park 
says it fairly often.

But "Just do it!" doesn't answer the question of cost/benefit.

It avoids it in favor of advocacy.

Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to solve 
this problem? Then, what increase in revenue will result from solving it?

Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why doesn't 
G+ solve the problem?

Are privacy controls are a non-problem?

Your "context lenses."

True, you can market a product/service that no one has ever seen before. 
Like pet rocks.

And they "just did it!"

With one important difference.

Their *doing it* did not depend upon the gratuitous efforts of thousands 
if not millions of others.

Isn't that an important distinction?

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick


On 8/18/2011 10:54 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> On 8/18/11 10:25 AM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
>> Kingsley,
>>
>> Your characterization of "problems" is spot on:
>>
>> On 8/18/2011 9:01 AM, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Linked Data addresses many real world problems. The trouble is that 
>>> problems are subjective. If you have experienced a problem it 
>>> doesn't exist. If you don't understand a problem it doesn't exist. 
>>> If you don't know a problem exists then again it doesn't exist in 
>>> you context.
>>>
>>
>> But you left out: The recognized "problem" must *cost more* than the 
>> cost of addressing it.
>
> Yes. Now in my case I assumed the above to be implicit when context is 
> about a solution or solutions :-)
>
> If a solution costs more than the problem, it is a problem^n matter. 
> No good.
>
>>
>> A favorable cost/benefit ratio has to be recognized by the people 
>> being called upon to make the investment in solutions.
>
> Always! Investment evaluation 101 for any business oriented decision 
> maker.
>
>>
>> That is recognition of a favorable cost/benefit ratio by the W3C and 
>> company is insufficient.
>>
>> Yes?
>
> Yes-ish. And here's why. Implementation cost is a tricky factor, one 
> typically glossed over in marketing communications that more often 
> than not blind side decision makers; especially those that are 
> extremely technically challenged. Note, when I say "technically 
> challenged" I am not referring to programming skills. I am referring 
> to basic understanding of technology as it applies to a given domain 
> e.g. the enterprise.
>
> Back to the W3C and "The Semantic Web Project". In this case, the big 
> issue is that degree of unobtrusive delivery hasn't been a leading 
> factor -- bar SPARQL where its deliberate SQL proximity is all about 
> unobtrusive implementation and adoption. Ditto R2RML .
>
> RDF is an example of a poorly orchestrated revolution at the syntax 
> level that is implicitly obtrusive at adoption and implementation 
> time. It is in this context I agree fully with you. There was a 
> misconception that RDF would be adopted like HTML, just like that. As 
> we can all see today, that never happened and will never happened via 
> revolution.
>
> What can happen, unobtrusively, is the use and appreciation of 
> solutions that generate Linked Data (expressed using a variety of 
> syntaxes and serialized in a variety of formats). That's why we've 
> invested so much time in both Linked Data Middleware and DBMS 
> technology for ingestion, indexing, querying, and serialization.
>>
>>> For the umpteenth time here are three real world problems addressed 
>>> effectively by Linked Data courtesy of AWWW (Architecture of the 
>>> World Wide Web):
>>>
>>> 1. Verifiable Identifiers -- as delivered via WebID (leveraging 
>>> Trust Logic and FOAF)
>>> 2. Access Control Lists -- an application of WebID and Web Access 
>>> Control Ontology
>>> 3. Heterogeneous Data Access and Integration -- basically taking use 
>>> beyond the limits of ODBC, JDBC etc..
>>>
>>> Let's apply the items above to some contemporary solutions that 
>>> illuminate the costs of not addressing the above:
>>>
>>> 1. G+ -- the "real name" debacle is WebID 101 re. pseudonyms, 
>>> synonyms, and anonymity
>>> 2. Facebook -- all the privacy shortcomings boil down to not 
>>> understanding the power of InterWeb scale verifiable identifiers and 
>>> access control lists
>>> 3. Twitter -- inability to turn Tweets into structured annotations 
>>> that are basically nano-memes
>>> 4. Email, Comment, Pingback SPAM -- a result of not being able to 
>>> verify identifiers
>>> 5. Precision Find -- going beyond the imprecision of Search Engines 
>>> whereby subject attribute and properties are used to contextually 
>>> discover relevant things (explicitly or serendipitously).
>>>
>>> The problem isn't really a shortage of solutions, far from it.
>>>
>> For the sake of argument only, conceding these are viable solutions, 
>> the question is:
>>
>> Do they provide more benefit than they cost?
>
> Yes. They do, unequivocally.
>>
>> If that can't be answered favorably, in hard currency (or some other 
>> continuum of value that appeals to particular investors), no one is 
>> going to make the investment.
>>
>> Economics 101.
>
> This critical value only materializes via appropriate "context 
> lenses". For decision makers it is always via opportunity costs.  If 
> someone else is eating you lunch by disrupting your market you simply 
> have to respond. Thus, on this side of the fence its better to focus 
> on eating lunch rather than warning about the possibility of doing so, 
> or outlining how it could be done. Just do it!
>
>>
>> That isn't specific to SemWeb but any solution to a problem.
>
> Yes!
>
>> The solution has to provide a favorable cost/benefit ratio or it 
>> won't be adopted. Or at least not widely.
>>
>> Hope you are having a great day!
>>
>> Patrick
>>
>
>

-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick@durusau.net
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau

Received on Thursday, 18 August 2011 17:39:03 UTC