Re: The Battle for Linked Data

> Hugh
> 
> here i share my recent experience with a big time (smart) tech
> manager of a big time (smart) enterprises we're working on.
> 
> * He kept on telling us "we're doing liked data, linked data is hot"
> * I tried to convince him that no.. really liked data is this insane
> things that people should use 303,  link to "others" etc..
> * He kept on saying na.. we've structured data, we're linking it
> inside the way we think its reasonable, we're importing other datasets
> and linked them.. we're doing linked data.
> *i stopped arguing.. :) and now i used the term when talking to
> enterprises and they get it. The whole web protocol part neglected


In that diluted sense, data has always been "linked data" ever since E.F. Codd has proposed the relational data model in 1969. Every foreign key links data in that meaning of the words.

Borrowing a term from a technical innovation and abusing it for marketing talk has often been a successful sales technique, that is clear. But it won't last for long. And it is more similar to selling sugar water than to changing the world...

If you want to make a fundamental impact, you must not be satisfied even if your customers say they are satisfied. They judge you in the light of their past experiences, so even a tiny incremental improvement can get you positive feedback. "Good enough" is never truly good. It is the wrong approach to take early commercial success as any evidence for whether you are on the right track. Even smart people buy nonsense products every now and then.

> just sharing the way it is now.

That is quite a bold statement from a tiny bit of evidence.



On Mar 26, 2012, at 10:16 PM, Giovanni Tummarello wrote:

> Hugh
> 
> here i share my recent experience with a big time (smart) tech
> manager of a big time (smart) enterprises we're working on.
> 
> * He kept on telling us "we're doing liked data, linked data is hot"
> * I tried to convince him that no.. really liked data is this insane
> things that people should use 303,  link to "others" etc..
> * He kept on saying na.. we've structured data, we're linking it
> inside the way we think its reasonable, we're importing other datasets
> and linked them.. we're doing linked data.
> *i stopped arguing.. :) and now i used the term when talking to
> enterprises and they get it. The whole web protocol part neglected
> 
> just sharing the way it is now. The term is just too good to pass. I
> would love a looser more comprehensive, more reusable, more useful
> definition so we could finally all use it in a way that's supported by
> some doc out there.. but until that doc exists..
> 
> Gio
> 
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 5:49 PM, Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>> So What is Linked Data?
>> And relatedly, Who Owns the Term "Linked Data"?
>> (If we used a URI for Linked Data, it might or might not be clearer.)
>> 
>> Of course most people think that "What *I* think is Linked Data is Linked Data".
>> And by construction, if it is different it is not Linked Data.
>> Kingsley views the stuff people are talking about that does not, for example, conform to a policy that includes Range-14 as "Structured Data" - naming things is important, as we well know, and can serve to separate communities..
>> 
>> There are clearly quite a few people who would like to relax things, and even go so far as to drop the IR thing completely, but still want to have the Linked Data badge on the resultant Project.
>> There are others for whom that is anathema.
>> 
>> I actually think that what we are watching is the attempt of the Linked Data child to fly the nest from the Semantic Web.
>> Can it develop on its own, and possibly have different views to the Semantic Web, or must it always be obedient to the objectives of its parent?
>> 
>> Often the objectives of Linked Data engineers are very different to the objectives of Semantic Web engineers.
>> (A Data Integration technology or a global AI system.)
>> So it is not surprising that the technologies they want might be different, and even incompatible.
>> 
>> If I push the parent/child analogy beyond its limit, I can see the forthcoming TAG meeting as the moment at which the child proposes to reason with the parent to try to reach a compromise.
>> The TAG seems to be part of the ownership of the term "Linked Data", because the Linked Data people (whoever they are) so agree at the moment - but this is not a God-given right - I don't think there is any trade- or copy-right on the term.
>> A failure to arrive at something that the child finds acceptable can often lead to a complete rift, where the child leaves home entirely and even changes its name.
>> 
>> And of course, after such a separation, exactly who would be using the term "Linked Data" to badge their activities?
>> 
>> Like others in this discussion I am typing one-handed, after earlier biting my arm off in preference to entering the Range-14 discussion again.
>> But I do think this is an important moment for the Linked Data world.
>> 
>> Best
>> Hugh
>> --
>> Hugh Glaser,
>>             Web and Internet Science
>>             Electronics and Computer Science,
>>             University of Southampton,
>>             Southampton SO17 1BJ
>> Work: +44 23 8059 3670, Fax: +44 23 8059 3045
>> Mobile: +44 75 9533 4155 , Home: +44 23 8061 5652
>> http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~hg/
>> 
>> 
> 

--------------------------------------------------------
martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
=================================================================
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/

Received on Monday, 26 March 2012 20:42:52 UTC