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

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