Re: From Open Database Connectivity to Open Data Connectivity

Kingsley, I like this line of argument. When I try to imagine myself 
back in 1995 discovering ODBC (versus 4GL's against specific, if 
SQLable, databases), I think I could have grokked a lot of the Linked 
Data arguments from this comparison.

I like specifically this 'superkeys' bit.

What I find is a little lacking, though, is the idea of a lot of those 
keys already existing (in open datasets). I don't think I would get that 
from:
"Web data (e.g., data from DBpedia) added to the mix" and
"using the Virtuoso ODBC driver against public services such as URIBurner"

I'd like to see something like "saves you from having to re-invent keys".

Just a quick first impression.

Barry


On 30/03/2012 21:47, Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> All,
>
> I've written a detailed post [1] about the timelessly important issue 
> of Open Data Access as it relates to Linked Data. I've responded to 
> snippets from a video [2] produced by one of our data access 
> middleware competitors turned co-opetitor [3].
>
> Linked Data is best sold to the enterprise as an improvement over 
> ODBC. Basically, an improvement that takes them from Open Database 
> Connectivity to Open Data Connectivity, courtesy of Web ubiquity.
>
> To the enterprise customer, an HTTP URI is a powerful Data Source Name 
> (DSN) mechanism. Its also a Super Key delivery mechanism since all 
> keys actually resolve to records that are intensional (description 
> oriented propositions in 3-tuple form).
>
> What I outline above is a "deceptively simple" value proposition that 
> any enterprise customer will comprehend, naturally.
>
> Links:
>
> 1. http://goo.gl/1dO33 -- Is Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) Dead?
> 2. http://youtu.be/kxjxlo5yTVk -- Video in full .
> 3. http://dbpedia.org/page/Coopetition -- Coopetition explained .
>

Received on Friday, 30 March 2012 21:08:35 UTC