- From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 17:27:49 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Kingsley, Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. People promoting technologies make up all sorts of numbers about what use of X will save. Reminds me of the music or software theft numbers. They have no relationship to any reality that I share. It's been enjoyable as usual but without some common basis for discussion we aren't going to get any closer to a common understanding. Hope you are having a great week! Patrick On 8/18/2011 3:24 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 8/18/11 2:50 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote: >> 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. ;-) > > Of course not. > > You want market research numbers, see the related section at the end > of this reply. I sorta assumed you would have found this > serendipitously though? Ah! You don't quite believe in the utility of > this Linked Data stuff etc.. > >> >>>> >>>> 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. > > See my earlier comment. > >> >> I ask for hard numbers, you say that isn't your question and/or >> skewing your comments. > > Yes. I didn't know this was about market research and numbers [1]. > >> >>>> >>>> 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? > > No! > > Take the number of people that have are members of a service that's > ambivalent to the self calibration of the vulnerabilities of its > members aka. privacy. > >> >> The remaining number need a WebID or some substantial portion, yes? > > Ultimately they need a WebID absolutely! And do you know why? It will > enable members begin the inevitable journey towards self calibration > of their respective vulnerabilities. > > I hope you understand that society is old and the likes of G+, FB are > new and utterly immature. In society, one is innocent until proven > guilty or not guilty. In the world of FB and G+ the fundamentals of > society are currently being inverted. Anyone can ultimately say > anything about you. Both parties are building cyber police states via > their respective silos. Grr... don't get me going on this matter. > > Every single netizen needs a verifiable identifier. That's the bottom > line, and WebID (courtesy of Linked Data) and Trust Semantics nails > the issue. > >> >> So who bears that cost? Each of those users? It cost each of them >> something to get a WebID. Yes? > > Look here is a real world example. Just google up on wire shark re. > Facebook and Google. Until the wire shark episodes both peddled lame > excuses for not using HTTPS. Today both use HTTPS. Do you want to know > why? Simple answer: opportunity cost of not doing so became palpable. > >> >> What is their benefit from getting that WebID? Will it outweigh their >> cost in their eyes? > > See comment above. > > We've already witnessed Craigslist horrors. But all of this is child's > play if identity isn't fixed on the InterWeb. If you think I need to > give you market numbers for that too, then I think we are simply > talking past ourselves (a common occurence). > >> >>>> 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. ;-) > > Hmm. wondering how you've concluded either way :-) > >> >> Seriously, I don't think they are as dumb as everyone seems to think. > > I haven't characterized them as dumb. I would put this in the careless > and ambivalent bucket. > >> >> It may well be they have had this very discussion and decided it >> isn't cost effective to address. > > See my earlier comments. Or just look at the G+ "real names" imbroglio. > >> >>>> >>>> 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..." > > See comments above about WebID and Trust Logic. It just another way of > referring to the issues that have resulted in outputs from the > Semantic Web Project. > >> >> 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. > > See my earlier comments. And for your numbers, see links below. >> >> 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? > > You can buy a solution that post installation will make and reconcile > all kinds of identifiers including those that serve are WebIDs for > humans or agents. > >> >> Since it is your solution, may I ask who is going to pay that cost? > > Companies have been paying for it already, for quite some time :-) I > am not speculating, simply sharing perspective re. what commercial > opportunities exist when you grok the Semantic Web Project stack and > the application of its output to solutions that solve real problems. > > >> >>>> >>>> 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. > > Links: > > 1. http://www.delicious.com/kidehen/market_research -- I am sure you > can filter through > > > Kingsley >> >> 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 21:26:39 UTC