W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2013

Re: There's No Money in Linked Data

From: Dieter Fensel <dieter.fensel@sti2.at>
Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2013 18:16:37 +0200
To: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1UioUH-0004jO-FE@lisa.w3.org>
At 04:42 PM 6/1/2013, Pascal Hitzler wrote:
>Dear Tim,
>I'm sure there will be an update of our write-up, considering all 
>the feedback we received.
>Concerning the "Open" issue:
>I'm guilty of not always being clear about the destinction between 
>LD and LOD. In fact I believe many people are not clear about it. We 
>should ask why they are not. And in fact our little write-up exposes 
>one probably reason: The notion simply is rather unclear. "Linked 
>Open Data must have an open licence" is - in the light of the 
>analysis in the paper - almost meaningless, as "openness" of 
>licences is not a boolean. There are many shades to it, and most of 
>these shades do not allow readily for commercialization.
>Concerning the title issue:
>I agree the choice of title is provocative and probably 
>"unacademic". The colloquial language used in the paper is also 
>"unacademic". However, as the main purpose of the write-up is to 
>stimulate discussion on the topic - the title serves this purpose 
>very well I think. However, I admit I rather like your laternative 
>suggestions :)
>Best Regards,
>On 5/23/2013 10:09 AM, Tim Berners-Lee wrote:
>>(not sure why this, which I wrote ages ago, is sitting again
>>in a window on my computer. Apologies if it was already sent before!).
>>Short version: Please change LD to LOD throughout.
>>A little while ago,  when we had made the 5* linked data  mug,
>>I got a valid objection to it from the people doing
>>for example enterprise linked data that their client's
>>data was generally extremely confidential and no way
>>would it be open, and the 5 star principle were really
>>valuable for interoperability, but the clients were scared
>>off by the fact that they could not even get one star without being open.
>>So that led to a big change, and more careful wording
>>and a (then) new mug.
>>   The new mug has in black, the Linked Data story, and in green, stamped on
>>"OPEN"  to make the "Linked Data" become "Linked Open Data",
>>and also in green "Open Licence" added to the requirements for the 
>>first star.
>>So the mug works two ways.
>>Without the green, it is about Linked Data (LD).
>>   If you include the green (e.g. wearing rose-coloured spectacles)
>>it becomes a recipe for Linked Open Data (LOD).
>>To have even 1 star, Linked Open Data must have an open licence.
>>other wise it is not Linked Open Data at all.
>>Meanwhile, 5* linked data (like my financial data
>>for my taxes) can be completely private.
>>The ability to discuss the different star levels of
>>Linked Data is important too.
>>This distinction has been really important
>>to a lot of people's understanding and to the
>>businesses in the space.
>>So when your article is ONLY about the openness,
>>about the need for linked Open data to be open,
>>it is a big problem that you use the wrong term!
>>There is lots of money in Enterprise Application Integration
>>which is not what you are doing.
>>I would ask you to update the paper.
>>I strongly suggest you update the PDFs you have in place with
>>a back-link to the original.
>>Please edit the paper and basically put "Linked Open Data" and  LOD 
>>wherever you are
>>talking about it, not "Linked Data" and LD.
>>Because the points that you make are generally important
>>and interesting and I'd like to be able to point to the paper.
>>I have other comments about the actual content, but
>>this is more important.
>>The title... must be something more appropriate
>>"Commercial use of Linked Open Data stymied by Licence Issues"
>>"LOD re-use plagued by lack of suitable licence"
>>"Viral or missing licenses hamper LOD uptake"
>>... or something....
>>Thanking you in advance.
>>On 2013-05 -17, at 22:13, Pascal Hitzler wrote:
>>>We just finished a piece indicating serious legal issues regarding 
>>>the commercialization of Linked Data - this may be of general 
>>>interest, hence the post. We hope to stimulate discussions on this 
>>>issue (hence the provokative title).
>>>Available from
>>>Linked Data (LD) has been an active research area for more than 6 
>>>years and many aspects about publishing, retrieving, linking, and 
>>>cleaning Linked Data have been investigated. There seems to be a 
>>>broad and general agreement that in principle LD datasets can be 
>>>very useful for solving a wide variety of problems ranging from 
>>>practical industrial analytics to highly specific research 
>>>problems. Having these notions in mind, we started exploring the 
>>>use of notable LD datasets such as DBpedia, Freebase, Geonames and 
>>>others for a commercial application. However, it turns out that 
>>>using these datasets in realistic settings is not always easy. 
>>>Surprisingly, in many cases the underlying issues are not 
>>>technical but legal barriers erected by the LD data publishers. In 
>>>this paper we argue that these barriers are often not justified, 
>>>detrimental to both data publishers and users, and are often built 
>>>without much consideration of their consequences.
>>>Prateek Jain, Pascal Hitzler, Krzysztof Janowicz, Chitra Venkatramani
>>>Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler
>>>Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
>>>pascal@pascal-hitzler.de   http://www.knoesis.org/pascal/
>>>Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org
>>>Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net
>Prof. Dr. Pascal Hitzler
>Kno.e.sis Center, Wright State University, Dayton, OH
>pascal@pascal-hitzler.de   http://pascal-hitzler.de/
>Semantic Web Textbook: http://www.semantic-web-book.org/
>Semantic Web Journal: http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/

Dieter Fensel
Director STI Innsbruck, University of Innsbruck, Austria
phone: +43-512-507-6488/5, fax: +43-512-507-9872
Received on Saturday, 1 June 2013 16:17:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:33 UTC