- From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 14:59:11 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4E4D60FF.3040102@durusau.net>
Kingsley, On 8/18/2011 2:25 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/18/11 2:03 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: >> 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. > > Technique wouldn't be SemWeb. It would be Data Virtualization that > leverages Semantic Web Project outputs such as: > > 1. Linked Data -- data homogenization (virtualization) mechanism > 2. OWL -- facilitator of reasoning against the vitualized substrate. > > To the target customer the experience would go something like this: > > 1. Install Data Virtualization product > 2. Identify heterogeneous data sources and their access method -- > these will typically accessible via ODBC, JDBC (if RDBMS hosted), Web > Services (SOAP based or via RESTful patterns what used to be SOA), or > URLs especially if external data sources are in the mix > 3. Bind to data sources > 4. Virtualize > 5. Show the new levels of agility 1-4 accord across all tool capable > of consuming URLs. > > What would you call such a product? At OpenLink Software we call it > OpenLink Virtuoso :-) > I would call it *no sale* if OpenLink Virtuoso + services costs more than I am spending now. Isn't that the pertinent question? Patrick > Kingsley >> >> 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 > > > -- > > Regards, > > Kingsley Idehen > President& CEO > OpenLink Software > Web:http://www.openlinksw.com > Weblog:http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen > Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen > > > > -- 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 18:57:51 UTC