- From: Patrick Durusau <patrick@durusau.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 06:37:58 -0400
- To: public-lod@w3.org
Kingsley, One more attempt. The "press release" I pointed to was an example that would have to be particularized to a CIO or CTO in term of *their* expenses of integration, then showing *their* savings. The difference in our positions, from my "context," is that I am saying the benefit to enterprises has to be expressed in terms of *their* bottom line, over the next quarter, six months, year. I "hear" (your opinion likely differs) you saying there is a global benefit that enterprises should invest in with no specific ROI for their bottom line in any definite period. Case in point, CAS, http://www.cas.org/. Coming up on 62 million organic and inorganic substances given unique identifiers. What is the incentive for any of their users/customers to switch to Linked Data? As I said several post ago, your success depends upon people investing in a technology for your benefit. (In all fairness you argue they benefit as well, but they are the best judges of the best use of their time and resources.) Hope you are looking forward to a great weekend! Patrick On 8/18/2011 10:09 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> > > -- 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 Friday, 19 August 2011 10:36:37 UTC