Re: Commercial/Real-world Semantic Web Services?

On Oct 17, 2006, at 8:17 PM, David Martin wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
>> On Oct 9, 2006, at 6:13 PM, Ed Addison wrote:
>>> I would suggest that those commercial applications that use  
>>> semantic web, or semantic web-like technology would not  
>>> necessarily advertise that that's what they are doing.  The  
>>> semantic web is a tool, not a product or market. SInce the  
>>> semantic web is in its infancy, commercial applications that do  
>>> use semantic web technology most likely use a significantly  
>>> scoped down subset of it.  The semantic web is more likely to  
>>> slowly infiltrate various information products and web services  
>>> rather than suddenly get commercial adoption.  Might be tough to  
>>> find or even classify the cases for your study.  Good luck.
>> One must be especially careful about such suggestions. While it is  
>> true that companies using SWS tech may not have a reason to  
>> advertize that (esp. if it is not their product!), it runs a bit  
>> close to the "there *is* stuff going on *because* we don't know  
>> about it".
>
> Didn't strike me that way.

I don't mean this *particular* expression of it. I'm just saying  
that, absent specific contrary evidence, the simplest explanation is  
that people aren't using it, not that they are using it and  not  
advertising it. Definitely want to avoid the they are using it and  
*hiding* that fact bit.

Even if it were *true* that corps were using it and not advertizing  
it, the right solution is to *ask them to advertize* a little, not  
suggest that "someone" may be using it. The latter is  
methodologically muddy as well as bad PR tactics.

>> There are enough people interested that I would expect *some*  
>> information to leak out. In any case, it's best to be humble :)
>
> Well, I mostly agree with the above.  But another form
> of humility is to recognize that there may be stuff going on that the
> community doesn't hear about, in spite of leakiness.

Eh. Of course. But that's why we say, "I've not heard of anything." :)

> For example, I am
> aware of some serious investigations, uses, and plans

Sure.

> to use SWS
> approaches within defense and intelligence
> agencies.  Many of these folks are not motivated to publish.  Some are
> strenuously expected to keep quite, and others will keep quite even if
> they don't have to, to avoid any possible hassles.

I'm skeptical. I mean, it's weird for me to be skeptical in the face  
of your assertion. I believe that you've heard these things, but what  
I don't believe is that there's anything interesting hopeful  
conclusion to be derived from those facts. So why bring them up  
(except for very restricted reasons)? Indeed, if we can't or won't  
know the details they don't make useful case studies either.

> However, I hasten to add that I'm not aware of any current uses that I
> would call "commercial" or "production".

Yeah. Exactly.

> But I am aware of a few
> planned uses in the "production" category.

That's good. I don't think it's a bad idea,  necessarily, to say  
"Hey, I know some intelligence guys who are deploying a system". But  
I don't think it's helpful to wink wink nudge nudge that you know  
when you can't say, since the rest of the world can't distinguish you  
from a faker.

> [Gee, I *really* hate to sound like certain politicians who justify  
> decisions by reference to secret stuff that's going on.  But  
> anyway, I'm not trying to justify anything here, just passing on  
> some information, albeit vaguely.]

Yeah. That's different.

> The other point related to Ed's post is that, in the absence of  
> standards or mature tools or a widely adopted methodology it's a  
> lot harder for a use of a SWS approach to leak out, simply for the  
> reason that it's harder to say what's a SWS approach.

Well, isn't it hard for them to get *used* in that context as well?  
So what are we to conclude?

I conclude "not really used yet" and try to figure out why or what  
one might do to change that. No good solutions thus far :) WS-Policy  
was my big hope and they had other things in mind this first round. I  
still think expressive WS-Policy or XACML analysis is a good way in,  
but it's hardly service composition or matchmaking!

>> Also, the original criteria weren't clear. For example, are XACML  
>> and WS-Policy "semantic web like" technology?
>> But to answer the original poster, I personally don't know of any  
>> (successfully) commercial or production uses of OWL-S, WSMO, or  
>> the like, at least off hand. I wouldn't take that as conclusive,  
>> but I do take it as not a healthy sign.
>> I did work with Fujistu on Task Computing (taskcomputing.org). I  
>> don't know if that would help.
>> At the SWS workshop of the w3c I did an informal poll of the  
>> participants asking if their organization was going to spend, oh,  
>> 1 million dollars in the next year on SWS...I don't think anyone  
>> bit (you could look up the minutes).
>
> Unfortunately that wasn't captured in the minutes or the summary.

'elp, 'elp, I'm bein' surpressed!

>   I
> don't think anyone bit directly,

Absolutely not.

> but I think there were some
> folks who indicated their organizations might spend that much in an
> indirect fashion - e.g., investing in labor for research or to  
> build prototype tools and infrastructure.

I don't think so. But I don't recall directly.

> And I'm pretty sure there were some who said their orgs would  
> invest that much if there were standards and more-or-less  
> established methodologies for working with them.  (Pretty big "if",  
> admittedly.)

And I'd invest that much if there was a booming market in which I  
could capitalize on my SWS superstardom! ;)

I may be a bit jumpy in this space (sorry Ed!) but I really think  
that the *right* humility is not to suggest even indirectly that  
there is a lot of secret use. Implicit use is trickier. I mean *do*  
we count WS-Policy?

[snipped useful links]

Cheers,
Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2006 20:25:42 UTC