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

On 8/18/11 5:27 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:
> Kingsley,
>
> Citing your own bookmark file hardly qualifies as market numbers. 

My own bookmark? I gave you a URL to a bookmark collection. The 
collection contains links for a variety of research documents.

> 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. 

Er. and you posted a link to a press release. What's your point?

> They have no relationship to any reality that I share.

But you posted an Informatica press release to make some kind of point. 
Or am I completely misreading and misunderstanding the purpose of that 
URL too?

>
> 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.

Correct :-)

Kingsley
>
> 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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>


-- 

Regards,

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