- From: Martynas Jusevicius <martynas@graphity.org>
- Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2012 11:45:58 +0200
- To: harish@semgel.com
- Cc: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>, Sebastian Schaffert <sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at>, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Hey all, speaking of (business) use cases for Linked Data, there is a number of them on W3C site: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/ However I needed to present a few cases as a minimal slide deck, so here it is -- maybe it will be helpful to someone: http://www.slideshare.net/graphity/linked-data-success-stories (Disclaimer: my project is mentioned in the end) Martynas graphity.org On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 6:26 AM, Harish Kumar M. <harish@semgel.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you all for your observations on Semgel. I was really delighted to see > Sebastian taking it upon himself to articulate in some detail about how > Semgel aligns with the Linked Data vision. Much appreciated! > > Its also been great to see some of the interesting thoughts and pointers > that have been shared in this thread. I would like to offer (albeit with > the risk of rehashing prior discussions in this group) clarifications and > observations on a few points . > > - The need for LinkedData consuming apps publishing Linked data URI's > (Kingsley's suggestion that served as a trigger for this thread!) > - Balancing idealism(ie dogma) and pragmatism(ie market-driven) in realizing > the vision of the Semantic web. (amplifying Bergman & Giovanni) > - The need for robust Linked Data Usecases which can logically be shown to > be superior to other/traditional approaches (amplifying Sebastian) > > ----------- > Linked-Data consuming apps should publish Linked-date URI's > > First off, I want to clarify that I considered Kingsley's queries and > suggestions to be perfectly reasonable and did not perceive them in any way > to be negative. I just happened to disagree with him about priorities. And > if the cut and thrust of argument can lead to a discussion like this, we > don't have much to complain about! > > Getting back to the point, Semgel's involvement with linked-data is a > strategic decision - its a leap of faith. So, in no way am I trying to > debate whether there is market of linked-data - after investing a bunch of > time and effort, I and most of us in this group are well past that point! > > However, we would like our tactical decisions to be market-driven. I saw > Kingsley's suggestion that linked-data consuming apps too should publish > LinkedData URI's as something that should be market-driven. > > Somewhere in the thread, Kingsley elegantly articulated the technical > rationale for doing this > > ... "the application ingests structured data but emits HTML pages (reports) > where the actual data keys (URIs) for the data are now dislocated from the > value chain? If you consume Linked Data there's no reason to obscure access > to those data sources in a solution. There are a number of best practice > patterns for keeping URIs accessible and discoverable to user agents" > > How could the geek in me not agree with this! However, wearing the business > hat, I need to silence the geek and recognize that this cannot be a priority > when we are still trying to firmly establish a basic ecosystem of > linked-data publishing and consuming apps. > > Kingsley reached out to me privately (very gracious of him!) and indicated > there is indeed a business case for Semgel to do this. I intend to engage > with him with a open mind to better understand his point of view. > > ---------- > Balancing idealism and pragmatism in realizing the vision of the Semantic > web. > > Semweb has always had more than its fair share of idealism and dogma > associated with it. However, at the risk of stating the obvious, we do need > to balance it with a appropriate amount of pragmatism. We just don't want to > go down the path of becoming "architectural astronauts"! > (http://bit.ly/bFnrDG) > > When Bergman speaks about seeing "linked data as a useful and often > desirable technique, but not a means" and Giovanni bemoans the fact that " > features are neglected because they do not fit with the pure original > visions" and insists that "The community must honestly assess where semantic > technologies don't fit and on the other hand which features of the semantic > web "stack" make some sense and bring value to the scenarios that have > (bring)economic value", I could not agree more! > > We want to focus on the value we deliver, not on how we deliver it. A user > of the Semgel app for instance is never made aware of its semweb roots - > although some of them do wonder why some simple ops are sometimes so very > slow :) > > Given Semgel's focus on linked-data consumption in general and UI in > particular, we have primarily drawn our inspiration from the work done by > the MIT/Simile folks. What makes them stand out for me is their pragmatism. > Exhibit, Potluck, Parallax and Refine all have pioneered fundamental ideas > without necessarily embracing the full semweb stack. This is what we would > like to emulate > > We also have the brilliant sig.ma from Sindice (which does explicitly expose > the underlying uri's) and I am very much looking forward to exploring > Martynas's graphity (discovered through this thread!) > > ---------- > The need for robust Linked Data Usecases > > Sebastian wondered 'if we could collect even a small set of convincing > business cases and describe what problems they are solving and how, and also > what problems they encountered, I think it would help many of us". > > Again, I couldn't agree more. > > When we describe Semgel's architecture to geeks (who have not consumed the > semweb koolaid!), they can't help but wonder why we have chosen to perform > such elaborate acrobatics to build what is on the surface a relatively > straight-forward app. Mashing up data? Why cannot that be accomplished with > a few lines of python code, they ask! > > The fact is that the one usecase that semweb really shines at is when there > is a need to > - integrate > - small, but > - diverse datasets (as in schema diversity) > - in a adhoc manner (as oppossed to pre-determined). > - for generic analysis > > This will only come into play when there is a mature, global, distributed > data landscape. The unfortunate fact is that its going to be while before we > see this. > > So the big question is - what intermediate problems can we take on while we > wait for this data paradise to emerge. I suppose this is where we need to > act on Sebastian's suggestion and begin to catalog linked-data usecases > which we can logically and rigorously show are superior to traditional > approaches. (we are not looking for usecases which simply demo how the tech > works). We really need to show how we can excel on the Variety dimension > of Big Data. > > If there are such lists, please do share them. If there are none, I would > love to collaborate with some of you to put something together. > > Thanks, > Harish > http://semgel.com > > ps : did any of you really read this response in its entirety? :) > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 9:51 PM, Giovanni Tummarello > <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org> wrote: >> >> In the past months i have worked a lot on the commercialization of RDF >> basedknowledge technologies so i feel like giving a contribution. >> >> We tried to understand what could be of interest to enterprise and >> came up with the slogan - or lets say adopted - "enterprise linked >> data clouds" with an internally matured understanding of what this >> means and how it deliver value. >> >> In our experience, Linked Data that can be of interest to enterprise >> cannot be further away from so many of the things that have been >> preached and pushed with prominence (i'll mention a few things like >> 303s, "follow your nose" even "resolvable data uris", "sameAs" , "5 >> star data publishing" , vocabolary x y that was never used outside >> demos... insert here so much more ). >> >> Similary is very far away from saying 'replace your existing running >> system with anything RDF based'. Wont even speak about preaching the >> value of publishin data as "lod". >> >> To find value that can be sold i'd go back to the basic a bit. >> >> RDF is very nice at Knowledge Representation. Matter of fact might >> be the most solid industrial tool there is for this. Great way to >> serialize knowledge with properties attached to the data, great way to >> merge, great way to ship it to others (and hope they'll understand it) >> thanks to shared URIs of properties. A mature query language. >> >> Ok so where does this come into use SPECIFICALLY? (that is you can >> demonstrate superiority vs other existing technologies) >> >> I'd say only in environments/use cases/ business sectors where >> >> * knowledge can come from many sources, AND >> * new sources popping up all the time, AND >> * sources which are complex, might have a lot of rich descriptions, >> * time to explore and understand them is limited, >> * AND of course sufficient SCALE of the operation/business to support >> the development/ have time to learn and understand this etc. >> >> The first sectors that come to mind with these needs are (at least >> come to mind to me) pharmaceutical, defense-military, scientific >> technical publishing. (they're the first that come to mind given that >> in my ownlittle personal experience these are the sector that 'came to >> us' and really didnt need pitching or just minimal) >> >> One can say that, looking well, a lot of others, potentially, in the >> future might have similar need. >> >> True.. but they might when you put another elements into this: data >> scale (bigdata) and robustness AND (given the last point of the >> previous list which is) enterprise strenght credibility. >> >> Here we as a community, IMO have not been shining:. >> >> * bigdata - just not there. Sorry but "publishing" a big data set as >> in LOD doesnt count as a difficult data operation to do. Semantic >> technologies have notoriously been proposed by "academics" with very >> often not even the slightest notion of what traditional data >> processing systems do, even a basic RDBMS. Get the names of the >> peoplewho have published and have been incensed on semantic web and >> intersect that with that of conferences that matter to industry (and >> the world) >> >> * robustness - all systems have been shaky at best again due to being >> too often just trow away prototypes (when coming from academia). In >> other cases companies venturing into this field have been way too much >> distracted/ pressured/ (and finally got self convinced) into >> implementing and caring about features (see all those mentioned above >> and more) that were unrequested to begin with, and which value was >> just based on a conjecture. >> >> * missing obvious features. Other features were neglected becouse "not >> fitting with the pure originalvisions" why restricting ourself to >> triples? quads or quintuples for example make so much sense but oh my >> god what would the community have said. And now systems that have >> these features e.g. certain graph sstores are the obvious choices in >> certain cases. >> >> Somebody mentioned "Garlik" as a success story earlier. They got this >> right, but by concentrating on thigs that made sense for industry >> (their industry) with minimal features that were needed (their 5store >> - the production large scale data processing triplestore really >> implements just a bare subsset of sparql, they reason only with some >> simple rules etc) but done with proper engineering. >> >> So my conclusion in short. >> >> There are, in our opinion and analysis, reasons why semantic data >> technologies/ large scale knowledge representation have a lot to give >> to society. However to have credibility have some result, the >> "community" must get humble , look at what's happening in the real >> world of data integration and big data. >> The community must honestly assess where semantic technologies don't >> fit and on the other hand which features of the semantic web "stack" >> make some sense and bring value to the scenarios that have (bring) >> economic value) >> >> Gio >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jul 21, 2012 at 1:05 AM, Sebastian Schaffert >> <sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at> wrote: >> > Hi Dave, >> > >> > comments inline. :) >> > >> > Am 20.07.2012 um 23:25 schrieb Dave Reynolds: >> > >> >> Hi Sebastian, >> >> >> >> I completely agree with what you say about: >> >> o Harish's original post being relevant to linked data and this list >> >> o that the culture of this forum can be counter productive >> >> o that the evidence for linked data delivering business value needs >> >> to be a lot stronger >> >> >> >> However, just to balance the picture slightly ... >> >> >> >> There are *some* clear, well documented examples of semweb/RDF/LD >> >> delivering business value through data integration. The most famous of these >> >> being probably: Garlik (now Experian), Amdocs and arguably the BBC. In my >> >> experience for every publicised example there are several non-public or at >> >> least less visible examples of companies quietly using the technology >> >> internally while not shouting about it. I've come across examples in >> >> banking, publishing, travel and health care - at different levels of >> >> maturity. >> > >> > Yes, for me these are all great results. However, the problem for me is >> > convincing other industries, and the toughest question I am always faced >> > with is "and why could I not solve the issue with established technology >> > XYZ, which my engineers already know?". As long as we cannot answer this >> > question, it will not be easy. >> > >> > >> >> >> >> Not saying the business value story is perfectly articulated or the >> >> evidence is watertight, but it's not totally absent :) >> >> >> >> While it's not your main point, I would also say we have reasonable >> >> arguments for the value of linked data over just CSVs for publishing >> >> government statistics and measurement data. The benefits include safer use >> >> of data because it's self-describing (e.g. units!), ability to slice and >> >> dice through API calls making it easier to build apps, ability to address >> >> the data and thus annotate it and reference it. The more advanced government >> >> departments approach this as "publish once, use many". One pipeline that >> >> lets people access the data as dumps, through REST APIs, as Linked Data or >> >> via apps - all powered by a shared Linked Data infra-structure. It's not CSV >> >> or Linked Data it's CSV *and* Linked Data. >> > >> > Yes. It was actually not really an argument from my side, I just wanted >> > to point out the kind of discussions I face with people out there. I totally >> > agree with what you say. >> > >> > Greetings, >> > >> > Sebastian >> > -- >> > | Dr. Sebastian Schaffert >> > sebastian.schaffert@salzburgresearch.at >> > | Salzburg Research Forschungsgesellschaft >> > http://www.salzburgresearch.at >> > | Head of Knowledge and Media Technologies Group +43 662 2288 >> > 423 >> > | Jakob-Haringer Strasse 5/II >> > | A-5020 Salzburg >> > >> > > >
Received on Sunday, 22 July 2012 09:46:26 UTC