Details
OpenLink Software
Burlington, United States
Subscribe
Post Categories
Recent Articles
Community Member Blogs
Display Settings
Translate
|
Showing posts in all categories Refresh
Simple Compare & Contrast of Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 (Update 1)
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
Here is a tabulated "compare and contrast" of Web usage patterns 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
| | Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 | Web 3.0 | | Simple Definition | Interactive / Visual Web | Programmable Web | Linked Data Web | | Unit of Presence | Web Page | Web Service Endpoint | Data Space (named structured data enclave) | | Unit of Value Exchange | Page URL | Endpoint URL for API | Resource / Entity / Object URI | | Data Granularity | Low (HTML) | Medium (XML) | High (RDF) | | Defining Services | Search | Community (Blogs to Social Networks) | Find | | Participation Quotient | Low | Medium | High | | Serendipitous Discovery Quotient | Low | Medium | High | | Data Referencability Quotient | Low (Documents) | Medium (Documents) | High (Documents and their constituent Data) | | Subjectivity Quotient | High | Medium (from A-list bloggers to select source and partner lists) | Low (everything is discovered via URIs) | | Transclusence | Low | Medium (Code driven Mashups) | HIgh (Data driven Meshups) | | What You See Is What You Prefer (WYSIWYP) | Low | Medium | High (negotiated representation of resource descriptions) | | Open Data Access (Data Accessibility) | Low | Medium (Silos) | High (no Silos) | | Identity Issues Handling | Low | Medium (OpenID) | High (FOAF+SSL) | | Solution Deployment Model | Centralized | Centralized with sprinklings of Federation | Federated with function specific Centralization (e.g. Lookup hubs like LOD Cloud or DBpedia) | | Data Model Orientation | Logical (Tree based DOM) | Logical (Tree based XML) | Conceptual (Graph based RDF) | | User Interface Issues | Dynamically generated static interfaces | Dyanically generated interafaces with semi-dynamic interfaces (courtesy of XSLT or XQuery/XPath) | Dynamic Interfaces (pre- and post-generation) courtesy of self-describing nature of RDF | | Data Querying | Full Text Search | Full Text Search | Full Text Search + Structured Graph Pattern Query Language (SPARQL) | | What Each Delivers | Democratized Publishing | Democratized Journalism & Commentary (Citizen Journalists & Commentators) | Democratized Analysis (Citizen Data Analysts) | | Star Wars Edition Analogy | Star Wars (original fight for decentralization via rebellion) | Empire Strikes Back (centralization and data silos make comeback) | Return of the JEDI (FORCE emerges and facilitates decentralization from "Identity" all the way to "Open Data Access" and "Negotiable Descriptive Data Representation") |
Naturally, I am not expecting everyone to agree with me. I am simply making my contribution to what will remain facinating discourse for a long time to come :-) Related
|
03/14/2009 14:20 GMT
|
Modified:
04/29/2009 13:21 GMT
|
Simple Compare & Contrast of Web 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 (Update 1)
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
Here is a tabulated "compare and contrast" of Web usage patterns 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0.
| | Web 1.0 | Web 2.0 | Web 3.0 | | Simple Definition | Interactive / Visual Web | Programmable Web | Linked Data Web | | Unit of Presence | Web Page | Web Service Endpoint | Data Space (named structured data enclave) | | Unit of Value Exchange | Page URL | Endpoint URL for API | Resource / Entity / Object URI | | Data Granularity | Low (HTML) | Medium (XML) | High (RDF) | | Defining Services | Search | Community (Blogs to Social Networks) | Find | | Participation Quotient | Low | Medium | High | | Serendipitous Discovery Quotient | Low | Medium | High | | Data Referencability Quotient | Low (Documents) | Medium (Documents) | High (Documents and their constituent Data) | | Subjectivity Quotient | High | Medium (from A-list bloggers to select source and partner lists) | Low (everything is discovered via URIs) | | Transclusence | Low | Medium (Code driven Mashups) | HIgh (Data driven Meshups) | | What You See Is What You Prefer (WYSIWYP) | Low | Medium | High (negotiated representation of resource descriptions) | | Open Data Access (Data Accessibility) | Low | Medium (Silos) | High (no Silos) | | Identity Issues Handling | Low | Medium (OpenID) | High (FOAF+SSL) | | Solution Deployment Model | Centralized | Centralized with sprinklings of Federation | Federated with function specific Centralization (e.g. Lookup hubs like LOD Cloud or DBpedia) | | Data Model Orientation | Logical (Tree based DOM) | Logical (Tree based XML) | Conceptual (Graph based RDF) | | User Interface Issues | Dynamically generated static interfaces | Dyanically generated interafaces with semi-dynamic interfaces (courtesy of XSLT or XQuery/XPath) | Dynamic Interfaces (pre- and post-generation) courtesy of self-describing nature of RDF | | Data Querying | Full Text Search | Full Text Search | Full Text Search + Structured Graph Pattern Query Language (SPARQL) | | What Each Delivers | Democratized Publishing | Democratized Journalism & Commentary (Citizen Journalists & Commentators) | Democratized Analysis (Citizen Data Analysts) | | Star Wars Edition Analogy | Star Wars (original fight for decentralization via rebellion) | Empire Strikes Back (centralization and data silos make comeback) | Return of the JEDI (FORCE emerges and facilitates decentralization from "Identity" all the way to "Open Data Access" and "Negotiable Descriptive Data Representation") |
Naturally, I am not expecting everyone to agree with me. I am simply making my contribution to what will remain facinating discourse for a long time to come :-) Related
|
03/14/2009 14:20 GMT
|
Modified:
04/29/2009 13:21 GMT
|
Response to: What is Web 3.0 and Why Should I Care?
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
Another post done in response to lost comments. This time, the comments relate to Robin Bloor's article titled: What is Web 3.0 and Why Should I Care?
Robin:
Web 3.0 is fundamentally about the World Wid Web becoming a structured database equipped with a formal data model (RDF which is a moniker for Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships based Graph Model), query language, and a protocol for handling divrerse data representational requirements via negotiation .
Web 3.0 is about a Web that facilitates serendipitous discovery of relevant things; thereby making serendipitous discovery quotient (SDQ), rather than search engine optimization (SEO), the critical success factor that drives how resources get published on the Web.
Personally, I believe we are on the cusp of a major industry inflection re. how we interact with data hosted in computing spaces. In a nutshell, the conceptual model interaction based on real-world entities such as people, places, and other things (including abstract subject matter) will usurp traditional logical model interaction based on rows and columns of typed and/or untyped literal values exemplified by relational data access and management systems.
Labels such as "Web 3.0", "Linked Data", and "Semantic Web", are simply about the aforementioned model transition playing out on the World Wide Web and across private Linked Data Webs such as Intranets & Extranets, as exemplified emergence of the "Master Data Management" label/buzzword.
What's the critical infrastructure supporting Web 3.0?
As was the case with Web Services re. Web 2.0, there is a critical piece of infrastructure driving the evolution in question, and in this case it comes down to the evolution of Hyperlinking.
We now have a new and complimentary variant of Hyperlinking commonly referred to as "Hyperdata" that now sits alongside "Hypertext". Hyperdata when used in conjunction with HTTP based URIs as Data Source Names (or Identifiers), delivers a potent and granular data access mechanism scoped down to the datum (object or record) level; which is much different from the document (record or entity container) level linkage that Hypertext accords.
In addition, the incorporation of HTTP into this new and enhanced granular Data Source Naming mechanism also addresses past challenges relating to separation of data, data representation, and data transmission protocols -- remember XDR woes familiar to all sockets level programmers -- courtesy of in-built content negotiation. Hence, via a simple HTTP GET --against a Data Source Name exposed by a Hyperdata link -- I can negotiate (from client or server sides) the exact representation of the description (entity-attribute-value graph) of an Entity / Data Object / Resource, dispatched by a data server.
For example, this is how a description of entity "Me" ends up being available in (X)HTML or RDF document representations (as you will observe when you click on that link to my Personal URI).
The foundation of what I describe above comes from:
-
Entity-Attribute-Value & Class Relationship Data Model (originating from LISP era with detours via the Object Database era. into the Triples approach in RDF)
- Use of HTTP based Identifiers in the Entity ID construction process
-
SPARQL query language for the Data Model.
Some live examples from DBpedia:
-
http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_Data
- http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hyperdata
- http://dbpedia.org/resource/Entity-attribute-value_model
- http://dbpedia.org/resource/Benjamin_Franklin
Related
|
01/29/2009 18:16 GMT
|
Modified:
01/29/2009 13:45 GMT
|
Introducing Virtuoso Universal Server (Cloud Edition) for Amazon EC2
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
What is it?
A pre-installed edition of Virtuoso for Amazon's EC2 Cloud platform.
What does it offer?
From a Web Entrepreneur perspective it offers:
-
Low cost entry point to a game-changing Web 3.0+ (and beyond) platform that combines SQL, RDF, XML, and Web Services functionality
-
Flexible variable cost model (courtesy of EC2 DevPay) tightly bound to revenue generated by your services
-
Delivers federated and/or centralized model flexibility for you SaaS based solutions
-
Simple entry point for developing and deploying sophisticated database driven applications (SQL or RDF Linked Data Web oriented)
-
Complete framework for exploiting OpenID, OAuth (including Role enhancements) that simplifies exploitation of these vital Identity and Data Access technologies
- Easily implement RDF Linked Data based Mail, Blogging, Wikis, Bookmarks, Calendaring, Discussion Forums, Tagging, Social-Networking as Data Space (data containers) features of your application or service offering
- Instant alleviation of challenges (e.g. service costs and agility) associated with Data Portability and Open Data Access across Web 2.0 data silos
-
LDAP integration for Intranet / Extranet style applications.
From the DBMS engine perspective it provides you with one or more pre-configured instances of Virtuoso that enable immediate exploitation of the following services:
-
RDF Database (a Quad Store with SPARQL & SPARUL Language & Protocol support)
-
SQL Database (with ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, ADO.NET, and XMLA driver access)
- XML Database (XML Schema, XQuery/Xpath, XSLT, Full Text Indexing)
- Full Text Indexing.
From a Middleware perspective it provides:
-
RDF Views (Wrappers / Semantic Covers) over SQL, XML, and other data sources accessible via SOAP or REST style Web Services
-
Sponger Service for converting non RDF information resources into RDF Linked Data "on the fly" via a large collection of pre-installed RDFizer Cartridges.
From the Web Server Platform perspective it provides an alternative to LAMP stack components such as MySQL and Apace by offering
-
HTTP Web Server
-
WebDAV Server
-
Web Application Server (includes PHP runtime hosting)
-
SOAP or REST style Web Services Deployment
-
RDF Linked Data Deployment
-
SPARQL (SPARQL Query Language) and SPARUL (SPARQL Update Language) endpoints
- Virtuoso Hosted PHP packages for MediaWiki, Drupal, Wordpress, and phpBB3 (just install the relevant Virtuoso Distro. Package).
From the general System Administrator's perspective it provides:
-
Online Backups (Backup Set dispatched to S3 buckets, FTP, or HTTP/WebDAV server locations)
- Synchronized Incremental Backups to Backup Set locations
- Backup Restore from Backup Set location (without exiting to EC2 shell).
Higher level user oriented offerings include:
- OpenLink Data Explorer front-end for exploring the burgeoning Linked Data Web
-
Ajax based SPARQL Query Builder (iSPARQL) that enables SPARQL Query construction by Example
- Ajax based SQL Query Builder (QBE) that enables SQL Query construction by Example.
For Web 2.0 / 3.0 users, developers, and entrepreneurs it offers it includes Distributed Collaboration Tools & Social Media realm functionality courtesy of ODS that includes:
-
Point of presence on the Linked Data Web that meshes your Identity and your Data via URIs
-
System generated Social Network Profile & Contact Data via FOAF?
-
System generated SIOC (Semantically Interconnected Online Community) Data Space (that includes a Social Graph) exposing all your Web data in RDF Linked Data form
-
System generated OpenID and automatic integration with FOAF
-
Transparent Data Integration across Facebook, Digg, LinkedIn, FriendFeed, Twitter, and any other Web 2.0 data space equipped with RSS / Atom support and/or REST style Web Services
-
In-built support for SyncML which enables data synchronization with Mobile Phones.
How Do I Get Going with It?
|
11/28/2008 19:27 GMT
|
Modified:
11/28/2008 16:06 GMT
|
Dog-fooding: Linked Data and OpenLink Product Portfolio
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
Thanks to RDF and Linked Data, it's becoming a lot easier for us to explain and reveal the depth of the OpenLink technology portfolio.
Here is a look at our offerings by product family:
As you explore the Linked Data graph exposed via our product portfolio, I expect you to experience, or at least spot, the virtuous potential of high SDQ (Serendipitous Discovery Quotient) courtesy of Linked Data, which is Web 3.0's answer to SEO. For instance, how Database, Operating System, and Processor family paths in the product portfolio graph (data network) unveil a lot more about OpenLink Software than meets the proverbial "eye" :-)
|
10/24/2008 22:05 GMT
|
Modified:
10/24/2008 18:13 GMT
|
The Numerati & The Magic of You!
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
In response to ReadWriteWeb's post titled: Who will own your Data in Web 3.0 World?. My simple answer: You! You will control your data in the Web 3.0 realm. If somehow this remains somewhat incomprehensible and nebulous (as is typical in this emerging realm) then simply think about this as: The Magic of You! Remember, "You" was the Times person of the year as an acknowledgement of the Web 2.0 phenomenon, and maybe this time next year it would simply be the "Magic of Being You" that's the person of the year :-) Web 3.0 brings databasing to the Web (as a feature). The single most important action item at this stage is the act of creating a record for yourself, in this new distributed database held together by an HTTP based Network (e.g., the World Wide Web). Related: - Get yourself a Web Database ID in 5 minutes or less
- 2006 Callout from TimBL: Get Yourself a URI
- Just watch the Numerati Video
|
10/21/2008 15:42 GMT
|
Modified:
02/01/2010 08:55 GMT
|
The Linked Data Market via a BCG Matrix (Updated)
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
The sweet spot of Web 3.0 (or any other Web.vNext moniker) is all about providing Web Users with a structured and interlinked data substrate that facilitates serendipitous discovery of relevant "Things" i.e., a Linked Data Web -- a Web of Linkable Entities that goes beyond documents and other information resource (data containers) types.
Understanding potential Linked Data Web business models, relative to other Web based market segments, is best pursued via a BCG Matrix diagram, such as the one I've constructed below:
Notes:
Link Density
- Web 1.0's collection of "Web Sites" have relatively low link density relative to Web 2.0's user-activity driven generation of semi-structured linked data spaces (e.g., Blogs, Wikis, Shared Bookmarks, RSS/Atom Feeds, Photo Galleries, Discussion Forums etc..)
- Semantic Technologies (i.e. "Semantics Inside style solutions") which are primarily about "Semantic Meaning" culled from Web 1.0 Pages also have limited linked density relative to Web 2.0
- The Linked Data Web, courtesy of the open-ended linking capacity of URIs, matches and ultimately exceeds Web 2.0 link density.
Relevance
- Web 1.0 and 2.0 are low relevance realms driven by hyperlinks to information resources ((X)HTML, RSS, Atom, OPML, XML, Images, Audio files etc.) associated with Literal Labels and Tagging schemes devoid of explicit property based resource description thereby making the pursuit of relevance mercurial at best
- Semantic Technologies offer more relevance than Web 1.0 and 2.0 based on the increased context that semantic analysis of Web pages accords
- The Linked Data Web, courtesy of URIs that expose self-describing data entities, match the relevance levels attained by Semantic Technologies.
Serendipity Quotient (SDQ)
- Web 1.0 has next to no serendipity, the closest thing is Google's "I'm Feeling Lucky" button
- Web 2.0 possess higher potential for serendipitous discovery than Web 1.0, but such potential is neutralized by inherent subjectivity due to its human-interaction-focused literal foundation (e.g., tags, voting schemes, wiki editors etc.)
- Semantic Technologies produce islands-of-relevance with little scope for serendipitous discovery due to URI invisibility, since the prime focus is delivering more context to Web search relative to traditional Web 1.0 search engines.
- The Linked Data Web's use of URIs as the naming and resolution mechanism for exposing structured and interlinked resources provides the highest potential for serendipitous discovery of relevant "Things"
To conclude, the Linked Data Web's market opportunities are all about the evolution of the Web into a powerful substrate that offers a unique intersection of "Link Density" and "Relevance", exploitable across horizontal and vertical market segments to solutions providers. Put differently, SDQ is how you take "The Ad" out of "Advertising" when matching Web users to relevant things :-)
|
09/25/2008 20:42 GMT
|
Modified:
09/26/2008 12:36 GMT
|
Crunchbase & Semantic Web Interview (Remix - Update 1)
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
After reading Bengee's interview with CrunchBase, I decided to knock up a quick interview remix as part of my usual attempt to add to the developing discourse.
CrunchBase: When we released the CrunchBase API, you were one of the first developers to step up and quickly released a CrunchBase Sponger Cartridge. Can you explain what a CrunchBase Sponger Cartridge is?
Me: A Sponger Cartridge is a data access driver for Web Resources that plugs into our Virtuoso Universal Server (DBMS and Linked Data Web Server combo amongst other things). It uses the internal structure of a resource and/or a web service associated with a resource, to materialize an RDF based Linked Data graph that essentially describes the resource via its properties (Attributes & Relationships).
CrunchBase: And what inspired you to create it?
Me: Bengee built a new space with your data, and we've built a space on the fly from your data which still resides in your domain. Either solution extols the virtues of Linked Data i.e. the ability to explore relationships across data items with high degrees of serendipity (also colloquially known as: following-your-nose pattern in Semantic Web circles).
Bengee posted a notice to the Linking Open Data Community's public mailing list announcing his effort. Bearing in mind the fact that we've been using middleware to mesh the realms of Web 2.0 and the Linked Data Web for a while, it was a no-brainer to knock something up based on the conceptual similarities between Wikicompany and CrunchBase. In a sense, a quadrant of orthogonality is what immediately came to mind re. Wikicompany, CrunchBase, Bengee's RDFization efforts, and ours.
Bengee created an RDF based Linked Data warehouse based on the data exposed by your API, which is exposed via the Semantic CrunchBase data space. In our case we've taken the "RDFization on the fly" approach which produces a transient Linked Data View of the CrunchBase data exposed by your APIs. Our approach is in line with our world view: all resources on the Web are data sources, and the Linked Data Web is about incorporating HTTP into the naming scheme of these data sources so that the conventional URL based hyperlinking mechanism can be used to access a structured description of a resource, which is then transmitted using a range negotiable representation formats. In addition, based on the fact that we house and publish a lot of Linked Data on the Web (e.g. DBpedia, PingTheSemanticWeb, and others), we've also automatically meshed Crunchbase data with related data in DBpedia and Wikicompany data.
CrunchBase: Do you know of any apps that are using CrunchBase Cartridge to enhance their functionality?
Me: Yes, the OpenLink Data Explorer which provides CrunchBase site visitors with the option to explore the Linked Data in the CrunchBase data space. It also allows them to "Mesh" (rather than "Mash") CrunchBase data with other Linked Data sources on the Web without writing a single line of code.
CrunchBase: You have been immersed in the Semantic Web movement for a while now. How did you first get interested in the Semantic Web?
Me: We saw the Semantic Web as a vehicle for standardizing conceptual views of heterogeneous data sources via context lenses (URIs). In 1998 as part of our strategy to expand our business beyond the development and deployment of ODBC, JDBC, and OLE-DB data providers, we decided to build a Virtual Database Engine (see: Virtuoso History), and in doing so we sought a standards based mechanism for the conceptual output of the data virtualization effort. As of the time of the seminal unveiling of the Semantic Web in 1998 we were clear about two things, in relation to the effects of the Web and Internet data management infrastructure inflections: 1) Existing DBMS technology had reached it limits 2) Web Servers would ultimately hit their functional limits. These fundamental realities compelled us to develop Virtuoso with an eye to leveraging the Semantic Web as a vehicle from completing its technical roadmap.
CrunchBase: Can you put into layman’s terms exactly what RDF and SPARQL are and why they are important? Do they only matter for developers or will they extend past developers at some point and be used by website visitors as well?
Me: RDF (Resource Description Framework) is a Graph based Data Model that facilitates resource description using the Subject, Predicate, and Object principle. Associated with the core data model, as part of the overall framework, are a number of markup languages for expressing your descriptions (just as you express presentation markup semantics in HTML or document structure semantics in XML) that include: RDFa (simple extension of HTML markup for embedding descriptions of things in a page), N3 (a human friendly markup for describing resources), RDF/XML (a machine friendly markup for describing resources).
SPARQL is the query language associated with the RDF Data Model, just as SQL is a query language associated with the Relational Database Model. Thus, when you have RDF based structured and linked data on the Web, you can query against Web using SPARQL just as you would against an Oracle/SQL Server/DB2/Informix/Ingres/MySQL/etc.. DBMS using SQL. That's it in a nutshell.
CrunchBase: On your website you wrote that “RDF and SPARQL as productivity boosters in everyday web development”. Can you elaborate on why you believe that to be true?
Me: I think the ability to discern a formal description of anything via its discrete properties is of immense value re. productivity, especially when the capability in question results in a graph of Linked Data that isn't confined to a specific host operating system, database engine, application or service, programming language, or development framework. RDF Linked Data is about infrastructure for the true materialization of the "Information at Your Fingertips" vision of yore. Even though it's taken the emergence of RDF Linked Data to make the aforementioned vision tractable, the comprehension of the vision's intrinsic value have been clear for a very long time. Most organizations and/or individuals are quite familiar with the adage: Knowledge is Power, well there isn't any knowledge without accessible Information, and there isn't any accessible Information without accessible Data. The Web has always be grounded in accessibility to data (albeit via compound container documents called Web Pages). Bottom line, RDF based Linked Data is about Open Data access by reference using URIs (HTTP based Entity IDs / Data Object IDs / Data Source Names), and as I said earlier, the intrinsic value is pretty obvious bearing in mind the costs associated with integrating disparate and heterogeneous data sources -- across intranets, extranets, and the Internet.
CrunchBase: In his definition of Web 3.0, Nova Spivack proposes that the Semantic Web, or Semantic Web technologies, will be force behind much of the innovation that will occur during Web 3.0. Do you agree with Nova Spivack? What role, if any, do you feel the Semantic Web will play in Web 3.0?
Me: I agree with Nova. But I see Web 3.0 as a phase within the Semantic Web innovation continuum. Web 3.0 exists because Web 2.0 exists. Both of these Web versions express usage and technology focus patterns. Web 2.0 is about the use of Open Source technologies to fashion Web Services that are ultimately used to drive proprietary Software as Service (SaaS) style solutions. Web 3.0 is about the use of "Smart Data Access" to fashion a new generation of Linked Data aware Web Services and solutions that exploit the federated nature of the Web to maximum effect; proprietary branding will simply be conveyed via quality of data (cleanliness, context fidelity, and comprehension of privacy) exposed by URIs.
Here are some examples of the CrunchBase Linked Data Space, as projected via our CruncBase Sponger Cartridge:
-
Amazon.com
-
Microsoft
-
Google
-
Apple
|
08/27/2008 18:16 GMT
|
Modified:
08/27/2008 20:35 GMT
|
The Future of the Desktop
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
Jason Kolb (who initially nudged me to chime in), and then ReadWriteWeb, and of course Nova's Twine about the topic, have collectively started an interesting discussion about Web.vNext (3.0 and beyond) under the heading: The Future of the Desktop.
My contribution to the developing discourse takes the form of a Q&A session. I've taken the questions posed and provided answers that express my particular points of view:
Q: Is the desktop of the future going to just be a web-hosted version of the same old-fashioned desktop metaphors we have today?
A: No, it's going to be a more Web Architecture aware and compliant variant exposed by appropriate metaphors.
Q: The desktop of the future is going to be a hosted web service
A: A vessel for exploiting the virtues of the Linked Data Web.
Q: The Browser is Going to Swallow Up the Desktop
A: Literally, of course not! Metaphorically, of course! And then the Browser metaphor will decomposes into function specific bits of Web interaction amenable to orchestration by its users.
Q: The focus of the desktop will shift from information to attention
A: No! Knowledge, Information, and Data sharing courtesy of Hyperdata & Hypertext Linking.
Q: Users are going to shift from acting as librarians to acting as daytraders
A: They were Librarians at Web 1.0, Journalist at Web 2.0, and Analysts in Web 3.0 (i.e, analyze structured and interlinked data), and CEOs in Web 4.0 (i.e. get Agents to do stuff intelligently en route to making decisions).
Q: The Webtop will be more social and will leverage and integrate collective intelligence
A: The Linked Data Web vessel will only require you to fill in your profile (once) and then serendipitous discovery and meshing of relevant data will simply happen (the serendipity quotient will grow in line with Linked Data Web density).
Q: The desktop of the future is going to have powerful semantic search and social search capabilities built-in
A: It is going to be able to "Find" rather than "Search" for stuff courtesy of the Linked Data Web.
Q: Interactive shared spaces will replace folders
A: Data Spaces and their URIs (Data Source Names) replace everything. You simply choose the exploration metaphor that best suits you space interaction needs.
Q: The Portable Desktop
A: Ubiquitous Desktop i.e. do the same thing (all answers above) on any device connected to the Web.
Q: The Smart Desktop
A: Vessels with access to Smart Data (Linked Data + Action driven Context sprinklings).
Q: Federated, open policies and permissions
A: More federation for sure, XMPP will become a lot more important, and OAuth will enable resurgence of the federated aspects of the Web and Internet.
Q: The personal cloud
A: Personal Data Spaces plugged into Clouds (Intranet, Extranet, Internet).
Q: The WebOS
A: An operating system endowed with traditional Database and Host Operating system functionality such as: RDF Data Model, SPARQL Query Language, URI based Pointer mechanism, and HTTP based message Bus.
Q: Who is most likely to own the future desktop?
A: You! And all you need is a URI (an ID or Data Source Name for "Entity You") and a Profile Page (a place where "Entity You" is Describe by You).
One Last Thing
You can get a feel for the future desktop by downloading and then installing the OpenLink Data Explorer plugin for Firefox, which allows you to switch viewing modes between Web Page and Linked Data behind the page. :-)
Related
|
08/21/2008 15:26 GMT
|
Modified:
08/21/2008 15:59 GMT
|
ODBC & WODBC Comparison
[
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
]
ODBC delivers open data access (by reference) to a broad range of enterprise databases via a 'C' based API. Thanks to the iODBC and unixODBC projects, ODBC is available across broad range of platforms beyond Windows.
ODBC identifies data sources using Data Source Names (DSNs).
WODBC (Web Open Database Connectivity) delivers open data access to Web Databases / Data Spaces. The Data Source Naming scheme: URI or IRI, is HTTP based thereby enabling data access by reference via the Web.
ODBC DSNs bind ODBC client applications to Tables, Views, Stored Procedures.
WODBC DSNs bind you to a Data Space (e.g. my FOAF based Profile Page where you can use the "Explore Data Tab" to look around if you are a human visitor) or a specific Entity within a Data Space (i.e Person Entity Me).
ODBC Drivers are built using APIs (DBMS Call Level Interfaces) provided by DBMS vendors. Thus, a DBMS vendor can chose not to release an API, or do so selectivity, for competitive advantage or market disruption purposes (it's happened!).
WODBC Drivers are also built using APIs (Web Services associated with a Web Data Space). These drivers are also referred to as RDF Middleware or RDFizers. The "Web" component of WODBC ensures openness, you publish Data with URIs from your Linked Data Server and that's it; your data space or specific data entities are live and accessible (by reference) over the Web!
So we have come full circle (or cycle), the Web is becoming more of a structured database everyday! What's new is old, and what's old is new!
Data Access is everything, without "Data" there is no information or knowledge. Without "Data" there's not notion of vitality, purpose, or value.
URIs make or break everything in the Linked Data Web just as ODBC DSNs do within the enterprise.
I've deliberately left JDBC, ADO.NET, and OLE-DB out of this piece due to their respective programming languages and frameworks specificity. None of these mechanisms match the platform availability breadth of ODBC.
The Web as a true M-V-C pattern is now crystalizing. The "M" (Model) component of M-V-C is finally rising to the realm of broad attention courtesy of the "Linked Data" meme and "Semantic Web" vision.
By the way, M-V-C lines up nicely with Web 1.0 (Web Forms / Pages), Web 2.0 (Web Services based APIs), and Web 3.0 (Data Web, Web of Data, or Linked Data Web) :-)
|
05/20/2008 19:37 GMT
|
Modified:
05/20/2008 15:46 GMT
|
|
|