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

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
>


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen