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

Kingsley,

Here are some hard numbers on integration of data benefits:

Future Integration Needs: Emerging Complex Data - 
http://www.informatica.com/news_events/press_releases/Pages/08182011_aberdeen_b2b.aspx

> */Integration costs are rising/* -- As integration of external data 
> rises, it continues to be a labor- and cost-intensive task, with 
> organizations integrating external sources spending 25 percent of 
> their total integration budget in this area. 

So I can ask a decision maker, what do you spend on integration now? 
Take 25% of that figure.

Compare to X cost for integration using my software Y.

Or better yet, selling the integrated data as a service.

Data that isn't in demand to be integrated, isn't.

Technique neutral, could be SemWeb, could be third-world coding shops, 
could be Watson.

Timely, useful, integrated results are all that count.

Hope you are having a great day!

Patrick

On 8/18/2011 1:40 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> 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