- From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:50:48 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Kingsley, On 8/18/2011 1:52 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/18/11 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. > > I mean: just start eating the lunch i.e., make a solution that takes > advantage of an opportunity en route to market disruption. Trouble > with the Semantic Web is that people spend too much time arguing and > postulating. Ironically, when TimBL worked on the early WWW, his > mindset was: just do it! :-) > Still dodging the question I see. ;-) >> >> It avoids it in favor of advocacy. > > See my comments above. You are skewing my comments to match you > desired outcome, methinks. > You reach that conclusion pretty frequently. I ask for hard numbers, you say that isn't your question and/or skewing your comments. >> >> Example: Privacy controls and Facebook. How much would it cost to >> solve this problem? > > I assume you know the costs of the above. > It won't cost north of a billion dollars to make a WebID based > solution. In short, such a thing has existed for a long time, > depending on your "context lenses" . > I assume everyone here is familiar with: http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebID ? So we need to take the number of users who have a WebID and subtract that from the number of FaceBook users. Yes? The remaining number need a WebID or some substantial portion, yes? So who bears that cost? Each of those users? It cost each of them something to get a WebID. Yes? What is their benefit from getting that WebID? Will it outweigh their cost in their eyes? >> Then, what increase in revenue will result from solving it? > > FB -- less vulnerability and bleed. > > Startups or Smartups: massive opportunity to make sales by solving a > palpable problem. > >> >> Or if Facebook's lunch is going to be eaten, say by G+, then why >> doesn't G+ solve the problem? > > G+ is trying to do just that, but in the wrong Web dimension. That's > why neither G+ nor FB have been able to solve the identity > reconciliation riddle. > Maybe you share your observations with G and FB. ;-) Seriously, I don't think they are as dumb as everyone seems to think. It may well be they have had this very discussion and decided it isn't cost effective to address. >> >> 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. > > Don't quite get your point. I am talking about a solution that starts > off with identity reconciliation, passes through access control lists, > and ultimately makes virtues of heterogeneous data virtualization > clearer re. data integration pain alleviation. > > In the above we have a market place north of 100 Billion Dollars. > Yes, but your solution: "...starts off with identity reconciliation..." Sure, start with the critical problem already solved and you really are at a "...market place north of 100 Billion Dollars...", but that is all in your imagination. Having a system of assigned and reconciled WebIDs isn't a zero cost to users or businesses solution. It is going to cost someone to assign and reconcile those WebIDs. Yes? Since it is your solution, may I ask who is going to pay that cost? >> >> Isn't that an important distinction? > > Yes, and one that has never been lost on me :-) > Interested to hear your answer since that distinction has never been lost on you. Patrick > Kingsley >> >> 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 18:49:38 UTC