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

Re: There's No Money in Linked Data

From: Giovanni Tummarello <giovanni.tummarello@deri.org>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:24:42 +0100
Message-ID: <CAHHRs7j4dR93wwfU8NPha0BoTQ10fF5TmAGExXLeWrw775p5Qw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Cc: Pascal Hitzler <pascal.hitzler@wright.edu>, SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Thanks for saying this Tim! this is really important.



Linked Data is NOT the same Linked Open Data. Linked Data is the use of the
RDF stack, URIs, etc nimble, even potentially partially decentralized data
integration, with very big promise in enterprise.
Linked Open Data is a different story, publish datasets around,
interlinking etc..

In fact, to be frank IMO LOD is at the moment not doing a favor to LD and
its adoption. I do report that i have to spend time distinguishing  one
from the other when discussing to enterprise people who heard bad press on
LOD  not being what advertised and often disconnected from reality.

I think this is one concept we should spend some time an effort to get out
- If anyone wants to start an initiative for this sort of education and
save LD as a term (we use "Enterprise Linked Data Clouds") e.g. with a
whitepaper etc i am very happy to support with my reports from our
enterprise experience so far. or any other initiative we could take?

Pascal i really would appreciate too if you changed the title of the
document and made this clarification upfront. I can see just the titled
being quoted and potentially making damage in enterprise use.

Gio


On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org> 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,
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/lod/480759174v0_350x350_Back.jpg
> 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.
> http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/lod/597992118v2_350x350_Back.jpg
>
>  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.
>
> Tim
>
>
>
> 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
> > http://knoesis.wright.edu/faculty/pascal/pub/nomoneylod.pdf
> >
> > Abstract.
> > 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.
> >
> > Authors:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 24 May 2013 09:25:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:37 UTC