Orri Erling (Program Manager: OpenLink
Virtuoso) has dropped a well explained
reiteration of the essence of the "
Linked Data Web" or "
Data Web" with an emphasis
on the business value. His post is titled:
State of the Semantic Web (Part 1) - Sociology,
Business, and Messaging.
Typically, Orri's post are targeted at the hard core RDF and
SQL DBMS audiences, but in this particular
post, he shoots straight at the business community revealing
"Opportunity Cost" containment as the invisible driver behind the
business aspects of any market inflection.
Remember, the Web isn't ubiquitous because its users mastered
the mechanics and virtues of HTML and/or HTTP. Web ubiquity is a
function of the opportunity cost of not being on the Web, courtesy
of the network effects of hyperlinked documents -- i.e., the
instant gratification of traversing documents on the Web via a
single click action. In similar fashion, the Linked Data Web's
ubiquity will simply come down to the opportunity cost of not being
"inside the Web", courtesy of the network effects of hyperlinked
entities (documents, people, music, books, and other "Things").
Here are some excerpts from Orri's post:
Every time there is a major shift in technology,
this shift needs to be motivated by addressing a new class of
problem. This means doing something that could not be done before.
The last time this happened was when the relational database became
the dominant IT technology. At that time, the questions involved
putting the enterprise in the database and building a cluster of
line of business applications around the database. The argument for
the RDBMS was that you did not have to
constrain the set of queries that might later be made, when
designing the database. In other words, it was making things more
ad hoc. This was opposed then on grounds of being less efficient
than the hierarchical and network databases which the relational
eventually replaced. Today, the point of the Data Web
is that you do not have to constrain what your data can join or
integrate with, when you design your database. The counter-argument
is that this is slow and geeky and not scalable. See the
similarity? A difference is that we are not
specifically aiming at replacing the RDBMS. In fact, if you know
exactly what you will query and have a well defined workload, a
relational representation optimized for the workload will give you
about 10x the performance of the equivalent RDF warehouse. OLTP
remains a relational-only domain. However, when we are
talking about doing queries and analytics against the Web, or even
against more than a handful of relational systems, the things which
make RDBMS good become problematic.
If we think about Web 1.0 as a period where the distinguishing
noun was: "Author", and Web 2.0 the noun: "Journalist", we should
be able to see that what comes next is the noun: "Analyst". This
new generation analyst would be equipped with de-referencable Web
Identity courtesy of their Person Entity URI. The analyst's URI would also be the
critical component of Web based low cost attribution ecosystem; one
that ultimately turns the URI into the analyst's brand emblem /
imprint.
Related