Kingsley Idehen's Blog Data Space

In recent times a lot of the commentary and focus re. Virtuoso has centered on the RDF Quad Store and Linked Data. What sometimes gets overlooked is the sophisticated Virtual Database Engine that provides the foundation for all of Virtuoso's data integration capabilities.

In this post I provide a brief re-introduction to this essential aspect of Virtuoso.

What is it?

This component of Virtuoso is known as the Virtual Database Engine (VDBMS). It provides transparent high-performance and secure access to disparate data sources that are external to Virtuoso. It enables federated access and integration of data hosted by any ODBC- or JDBC-accessible RDBMS, RDF Store, XML database, or Document (Free Text)-oriented Content Management System. In addition, it facilitates integration with Web Services (SOAP-based SOA RPCs or REST-fully accessible Web Resources).

Why is it important?

In the most basic sense, you shouldn't need to upgrade your existing database engine version simply because your current DBMS and Data Access Driver combo isn't compatible with ODBC-compliant desktop tools such as Microsoft Access, Crystal Reports, BusinessObjects, Impromptu, or other of ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, or OLE DB-compliant applications. Simply place Virtuoso in front of your so-called "legacy database," and let it deliver the compliance levels sought by these tools

In addition, it's important to note that today's enterprise, through application evolution, company mergers, or acquisitions, is often faced with disparately-structured data residing in any number of line-of-business-oriented data silos. Compounding the problem is the exponential growth of user-generated data via new social media-oriented collaboration tools and platforms. For companies to cost-effectively harness the opportunities accorded by the increasing intersection between line-of-business applications and social media, virtualization of data silos must be achieved, and this virtualization must be delivered in a manner that doesn't prohibitively compromise performance or completely undermine security at either the enterprise or personal level. Again, this is what you get by simply installing Virtuoso.

How do I use it?

The VDBMS may be used in a variety of ways, depending on the data access and integration task at hand. Examples include:

Relational Database Federation

You can make a single ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE DB, or XMLA connection to multiple ODBC- or JDBC-accessible RDBMS data sources, concurrently, with the ability to perform intelligent distributed joins against externally-hosted database tables. For instance, you can join internal human resources data against internal sales and external stock market data, even when the HR team uses Oracle, the Sales team uses Informix, and the Stock Market figures come from Ingres!

Conceptual Level Data Access using the RDF Model

You can construct RDF Model-based Conceptual Views atop Relational Data Sources. This is about generating HTTP-based Entity-Attribute-Value (E-A-V) graphs using data culled "on the fly" from native or external data sources (Relational Tables/Views, XML-based Web Services, or User Defined Types).

You can also derive RDF Model-based Conceptual Views from Web Resource transformations "on the fly" -- the Virtuoso Sponger (RDFizing middleware component) enables you to generate RDF Model Linked Data via a RESTful Web Service or within the process pipeline of the SPARQL query engine (i.e., you simply use the URL of a Web Resource in the FROM clause of a SPARQL query).

It's important to note that Views take the form of HTTP links that serve as both Data Source Names and Data Source Addresses. This enables you to query and explore relationships across entities (i.e., People, Places, and other Real World Things) via HTTP clients (e.g., Web Browsers) or directly via SPARQL Query Language constructs transmitted over HTTP.

Conceptual Level Data Access using ADO.NET Entity Frameworks

As an alternative to RDF, Virtuoso can expose ADO.NET Entity Frameworks-based Conceptual Views over Relational Data Sources. It achieves this by generating Entity Relationship graphs via its native ADO.NET Provider, exposing all externally attached ODBC- and JDBC-accessible data sources. In addition, the ADO.NET Provider supports direct access to Virtuoso's native RDF database engine, eliminating the need for resource intensive Entity Frameworks model transformations.

Related

• Attaching ODBC or JDBC accessible Relational Tables to Virtuoso
• Using an HTML based Wizard to Generate RDF based Linked Views over Relational Tables
• Screencast Demonstrating Wizard based generation of RDF based Linked Data Views Part 1
• Screencast Demonstrating Wizard based generation of RDF based Linked Data Views Part 1
• Generating RDF based Linked Data from non RDF based Web Resources via the Sponger
• Building ADO.NET based Entity Frameworks Views over Relational Data
• Building Silverlight Rich Internat Applicaitons using ADO.NET, Entity Frameworks, and RDF based Linked Data.

1. It isn't World Wide Web Specific (HTTP != World Wide Web)
2. It isn't Open Data Specific
3. It isn't about "Free" (Beer or Speech)
4. It isn't about Markup (so don't expect to grok it via "markup first" approach)
5. It's about Hyperdata - the use of HTTP and REST to deliver a powerful platform agnostic mechanism for Data Reference, Access, and Integration.

When trying to understand HTTP based Linked Data, especially if you're well versed in DBMS technology use (User, Power User, Architect, Analyst, DBA, or Programmer) think:

• Open Database Connectivity (ODBC) without operating system, data model, or wire-protocol specificity or lock-in potential
• Java Database Connectivity (JDBC) without programming language specificity
• ADO.NET without .NET runtime specificity and .NET bound language specificity
• OLE-DB without Windows operating system & programming language specificity
• XMLA without XML format specificity - with Tabular and Multidimensional results formats expressible in a variety of data representation formats.
• All of the above scoped to the Record rather than Container level, with Generic HTTP scheme URIs associated with each Record, Field, and Field value (optionally)

Remember the need for Data Access & Integration technology is the by product of the following realities:

1. Human curated data is ultimately dirty, because:
   • our thick thumbs, inattention, distractions, and general discomfort with typing, make typos prevalent
   • database engines exist for a variety of data models - Graph, Relational, Hierarchical;
   • within databases you have different record container/partition names e.g. Table Names;
   • within a database record container you have records that are really aspects of the same thing (different keys exist in a plethora of operational / line of business systems that expose aspects of the same entity e.g., customer data that spans Accounts, CRM, ERP application databases);
   • different field names (one database has "EMP" while another has "Employee") for the same record
   .
2. Units of measurement is driven by locale, the UK office wants to see sales in Pounds Sterling while the French office prefers Euros etc.
3. All of the above is subject to context halos which can be quite granular re. sensitivity e.g. staff travel between locations that alter locales and their roles; basically, profiles matters a lot.

Related

• ODBC and WODBC (Web Open Database Connectivity) Comparison
• Creating, Deploying, and Exploiting Linked Data Presentation
• Open Data Protocol Project

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• The Semantic Way - Alan Cho's Summary of PwC 2009 tech forecast report on the Semantic Web
• Is the RDBMS Doomed - ReadWriteWeb Article
• Anti-RDBMS: a list of Distributed Key-Value Stores - by Richard Jones (CTO Last.FM)
• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

As the world works it way through a "once in a generation" economic crisis, the long overdue downgrade of the RDBMS, from its pivotal position at the apex of the data access and data management pyramid is nigh.

What is the Data Access, and Data Management Value Pyramid?

As depicted below, a top-down view of the data access and data management value chain. The term: apex, simply indicates value primacy, which takes the form of a data access API based entry point into a DBMS realm -- aligned to an underlying data model. Examples of data access APIs include: Native Call Level Interfaces (CLIs), ODBC, JDBC, ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and Web Services.

The degree to which ad-hoc views of data managed by a DBMS can be produced and dispatched to relevant data consumers (e.g. people), without compromising concurrency, data durability, and security, collectively determine the "Agility Value Factor" (AVF) of a given DBMS. Remember, agility as the cornerstone of environmental adaptation is as old as the concept of evolution, and intrinsic to all pursuits of primacy.

In simpler business oriented terms, look at AVF as the degree to which DBMS technology affects the ability to effectively implement "Market Leadership Discipline" along the following pathways: innovation, operation excellence, or customer intimacy.

Why has RDBMS Primacy has Endured?

Historically, at least since the late '80s, the RDBMS genre of DBMS has consistently offered the highest AVF relative to other DBMS genres en route to primacy within the value pyramid. The desire to improve on paper reports and spreadsheets is basically what DBMS technology has fundamentally addressed to date, even though conceptual level interaction with data has never been its forte.

For more then 10 years -- at the very least -- limitations of the traditional RDBMS in the realm of conceptual level interaction with data across diverse data sources and schemas (enterprise, Web, and Internet) has been crystal clear to many RDBMS technology practitioners, as indicated by some of the quotes excerpted below:

"Future of Database Research is excellent, but what is the future of data?"

"..it is hard for me to disagree with the conclusions in this report. It captures exactly the right thoughts, and should be a must read for everyone involved in the area of databases and database research in particular."

-- Dr. Anant Jingran, CTO, IBM Information Management Systems, commenting on the 2007 RDBMS technology retreat attended by a number of key DBMS technology pioneers and researchers.

"One size fits all: A concept whose time has come and gone

1. They are direct descendants of System R and Ingres and were architected more than 25 years ago
2. They are advocating "one size fits all"; i.e. a single engine that solves all DBMS needs.

-- Prof. Michael Stonebreaker, one of the founding fathers of the RDBMS industry.

Until this point in time, the requisite confluence of "circumstantial pain" and "open standards" based technology required to enable an objective "compare and contrast" of RDBMS engine virtues and viable alternatives hasn't occurred. Thus, the RDBMS has endured it position of primacy albeit on a "one size fits all basis".

Circumstantial Pain

As mentioned earlier, we are in the midst of an economic crisis that is ultimately about a consistent inability to connect dots across a substrate of interlinked data sources that transcend traditional data access boundaries with high doses of schematic heterogeneity. Ironically, in a era of the dot-com, we haven't been able to make meaningful connections between relevant "real-world things" that extend beyond primitive data hosted database tables and content management style document containers; we've struggled to achieve this in the most basic sense, let alone evolve our ability to connect inline with the exponential rate at which the Internet & Web are spawning "universes of discourse" (data spaces) that emanate from user activity (within the enterprise and across the Internet & Web). In a nutshell, we haven't been able to upgrade our interaction with data such that "conceptual models" and resulting "context lenses" (or facets) become concrete; by this I mean: real-world entity interaction making its way into the computer realm as opposed to the impedance we all suffer today when we transition from conceptual model interaction (real-world) to logical model interaction (when dealing with RDBMS based data access and data management).

Here are some simple examples of what I can only best describe as: "critical dots unconnected", resulting from an inability to interact with data conceptually:

Financial regulatory bodies couldn't effectively discern that a Credit Default Swap is an Insurance policy in all but literal name. And in not doing so the cost of an unregulated insurance policy laid the foundation for exacerbating the toxicity of fatally flawed mortgage backed securities. Put simply: a flawed insurance policy was the fallback on a toxic security that financiers found exotic based on superficial packaging.

Banks still don't understand that capital really does exists in tangible and intangible forms; with the intangible being the variant that is inherently dynamic. For example, a tech companies intellectual capital far exceeds the value of fixture, fittings, and buildings, but you be amazed to find that in most cases this vital asset has not significant value when banks get down to the nitty gritty of debt collateral; instead, a buffer of flawed securitization has occurred atop a borderline static asset class covering the aforementioned buildings, fixtures, and fittings.

In the general enterprise arena, IT executives continued to "rip and replace" existing technology without ever effectively addressing the timeless inability to connect data across disparate data silos generated by internal enterprise applications, let alone the broader need to mesh data from the inside with external data sources. No correlations made between the growth of buzzwords and the compounding nature of data integration challenges. It's 2009 and only a miniscule number of executives dare fantasize about being anywhere within distance of the: relevant information at your fingertips vision.

Looking more holistically at data interaction in general, whether you interact with data in the enterprise space (i.e., at work) or on the Internet or Web, you ultimately are delving into a mishmash of disparate computer systems, applications, service (Web or SOA), and databases (of the RDBMS variety in a majority of cases) associated with a plethora of disparate schemas. Yes, but even today "rip and replace" is still the norm pushed by most vendors; pitting one mono culture against another as exemplified by irrelevances such as: FOSS/LAMP vs Commercial or Web vs. Enterprise, when none of this matters if the data access and integration issues are recognized let alone addressed (see: Applications are Like Fish and Data Like Wine).

Like the current credit-crunch, exponential growth of data originating from disparate application databases and associated schemas, within shrinking processing time frames, has triggered a rethinking of what defines data access and data management value today en route to an inevitable RDBMS downgrade within the value pyramid.

Technology

There have been many attempts to address real-world modeling requirements across the broader DBMS community from Object Databases to Object-Relational Databases, and more recently the emergence of simple Entity-Attribute-Value model DBMS engines. In all cases failure has come down to the existence of one or more of the following deficiencies, across each potential alternative:

1. Query language standardization - nothing close to SQL standardization
2. Data Access API standardization - nothing close to ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, or ADO.NET
3. Wire protocol standardization - nothing close to HTTP
4. Distributed Identity infrastructure - nothing close to the non-repudiatable digital Identity that foaf+ssl accords
5. Use of Identifiers as network based pointers to data sources - nothing close to RDF based Linked Data
6. Negotiable data representation - nothing close to Mime and HTTP based Content Negotiation
7. Scalability especially in the era of Internet & Web scale.

Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) data models

A common characteristic shared by all post-relational DBMS management systems (from Object Relational to pure Object) is an orientation towards variations of EAV/CR based data models. Unfortunately, all efforts in the EAV/CR realm have typically suffered from at least one of the deficiencies listed above. In addition, the same "one DBMS model fits all" approach that lies at the heart of the RDBMS downgrade also exists in the EAV/CR realm.

What Comes Next?

The RDBMS is not going away (ever), but its era of primacy -- by virtue of its placement at the apex of the data access and data management value pyramid -- is over! I make this bold claim for the following reasons:

1. The Internet aided "Global Village" has brought "Open World" vs "Closed World" assumption issues to the fore e.g., the current global economic crisis remains centered on the inability to connect dots across "Open World" and "Closed World" data frontiers
2. Entity-Attribute-Value with Classes & Relationships (EAV/CR) based DBMS models are more effective when dealing with disparate data associated with disparate schemas, across disparate DBMS engines, host operating systems, and networks.

Based on the above, it is crystal clear that a different kind of DBMS -- one with higher AVF relative to the RDBMS -- needs to sit atop today's data access and data management value pyramid. The characteristics of this DBMS must include the following:

1. Every item of data (Datum/Entity/Object/Resource) has Identity
2. Identity is achieved via Identifiers that aren't locked at the DBMS, OS, Network, or Application levels
3. Object Identifiers and Object values are independent (extricably linked by association)
4. Object values should be de-referencable via Object Identifier
5. Representation of de-referenced value graph (entity, attributes, and values mesh) must be negotiable (i.e. content negotiation)
6. Structured query language must provide mechanism for Creation, Deletion, Updates, and Querying of data objects
7. Performance & Scalability across "Closed World" (enterprise) and "Open World" (Internet & Web) realms.

Quick recap, I am not saying that RDBMS engine technology is dead or obsolete. I am simply stating that the era of RDBMS primacy within the data access and data management value pyramid is over.

The problem domain (conceptual model views over heterogeneous data sources) at the apex of the aforementioned pyramid has simply evolved beyond the natural capabilities of the RDBMS which is rooted in "Closed World" assumptions re., data definition, access, and management. The need to maintain domain based conceptual interaction with data is now palpable at every echelon within our "Global Village" - Internet, Web, Enterprise, Government etc.

It is my personal view that an EAV/CR model based DBMS, with support for the seven items enumerated above, can trigger the long anticipated RDBMS downgrade. Such a DBMS would be inherently multi-model because you would need to the best of RDBMS and EAV/CR model engines in a single product, with in-built support for HTTP and other Internet protocols in order to effectively address data representation and serialization issues.

EAV/CR Oriented Data Access & Management Technology

Examples of contemporary EAV/CR frameworks that provide concrete conceptual layers for data access and data management currently include:

• Resource Description Framework (RDF) - an EAV/CR based framework
• RDF Linked Data - EAV/CR based framework that mandates de-referencable HTTP based Identifiers
• ADO.NET Entity Frameworks - Microsoft .NET based EAV/CR framework
• Core Data Services - Mac OS X based EAV/CR framework that evolved from NeXT's Enterprise Object Frameworks (EOF).

The frameworks above provide the basis for a revised AVF pyramid, as depicted below, that reflects today's data access and management realities i.e., an Internet & Web driven global village comprised of interlinked distributed data objects, compatible with "Open World" assumptions.

Related

• The Semantic Way - Alan Cho's Summary of PwC 2009 tech forecast report on the Semantic Web
• Is the RDBMS Doomed - ReadWriteWeb Article
• Anti-RDBMS: a list of Distributed Key-Value Stores - by Richard Jones (CTO Last.FM)
• How & Why Glue is Using Amazon SimpleDB
• Object Database Manifesto (Identity excerpt)
• Database Models Overview
• Ted Nelson Explaining Irregularity and Idiosyncrasy of Data Structures - ZigZag Demo

What is it?

A pre-installed edition of Virtuoso for Amazon's EC2 Cloud platform.

What does it offer?

1. Low cost entry point to a game-changing Web 3.0+ (and beyond) platform that combines SQL, RDF, XML, and Web Services functionality
2. Flexible variable cost model (courtesy of EC2 DevPay) tightly bound to revenue generated by your services
3. Delivers federated and/or centralized model flexibility for you SaaS based solutions
4. Simple entry point for developing and deploying sophisticated database driven applications (SQL or RDF Linked Data Web oriented)
5. Complete framework for exploiting OpenID, OAuth (including Role enhancements) that simplifies exploitation of these vital Identity and Data Access technologies
6. 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
7. Instant alleviation of challenges (e.g. service costs and agility) associated with Data Portability and Open Data Access across Web 2.0 data silos
8. 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:

1. RDF Database (a Quad Store with SPARQL & SPARUL Language & Protocol support)
2. SQL Database (with ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, ADO.NET, and XMLA driver access)
3. XML Database (XML Schema, XQuery/Xpath, XSLT, Full Text Indexing)
4. Full Text Indexing.

From a Middleware perspective it provides:

1. RDF Views (Wrappers / Semantic Covers) over SQL, XML, and other data sources accessible via SOAP or REST style Web Services
2. 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

1. HTTP Web Server
2. WebDAV Server
3. Web Application Server (includes PHP runtime hosting)
4. SOAP or REST style Web Services Deployment
5. RDF Linked Data Deployment
6. SPARQL (SPARQL Query Language) and SPARUL (SPARQL Update Language) endpoints
7. 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:

1. Online Backups (Backup Set dispatched to S3 buckets, FTP, or HTTP/WebDAV server locations)
2. Synchronized Incremental Backups to Backup Set locations
3. Backup Restore from Backup Set location (without exiting to EC2 shell).

Higher level user oriented offerings include:

1. OpenLink Data Explorer front-end for exploring the burgeoning Linked Data Web
2. Ajax based SPARQL Query Builder (iSPARQL) that enables SPARQL Query construction by Example
3. 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:

1. Point of presence on the Linked Data Web that meshes your Identity and your Data via URIs
2. System generated Social Network Profile & Contact Data via FOAF?
3. System generated SIOC (Semantically Interconnected Online Community) Data Space (that includes a Social Graph) exposing all your Web data in RDF Linked Data form
4. System generated OpenID and automatic integration with FOAF
5. 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
6. In-built support for SyncML which enables data synchronization with Mobile Phones.

How Do I Get Going with It?

• Standard Installation Guide
• Personal or Service Specific DBpedia Installation Guide

In response to the "Semantic Web Technology" application classification scheme espoused by ReadWriteWeb (RWW), emphasized in the post titled: Where are all the RDF-based Semantic Web Apps?, here is my attempt to clarify and reintroduce what OpenLink Software offers (today) in relation to Semantic Web technology.

From the RWW Top-Down category, which I interpret as: technologies that produce RDF from non RDF data sources. Our product portfolio is comprised of the following; Virtuoso Universal Server, OpenLink Data Spaces, OpenLink Ajax Toolkit, and OpenLink Data Explorer (which includes ubiquity commands).

Virtuoso Universal Server functionality summary:

1. Generation of RDF Linked Data Views of SQL, XML, and Web Services in general
2. Deployment of RDF Linked Data
3. "On the Fly" generation of RDF Linked Data from Document Web information resources (i.e. distillation of entities from their containers e.g. Web pages) via Cartridges / Drivers
4. SPARQL query language support
5. SPARQL extensions that bring SPARQL closer to SQL e.g Aggregates, Update, Insert, Delete Named Graph support (i.e. use of logical names to partition RDF data within Virtuoso's multi-model dbms engine)
6. Inference Engine (currently in use re. DBpedia via Yago and UMBEL)
7. Host and exposes data from Drupal, Wordpress, MediaWiki, phpBB3 as RDF Linked Data via in-built support for PHP runtime
8. Available as an EC2 AMI
9. etc..

OpenLink Data Spaces functionality summary:

1. Simple mechanism for Linked Data Web enabling yourself by giving you an HTTP based User ID (a de-referencable URI) that is linked to a FOAF based Profile page and OpenID
2. Binds all your data sources (blogs, wikis, bookmarks, photos, calendar items etc. ) to your URI so can "Find" things by only remembering your URI
3. Makes your profile page and personal URI the focal point of Linked Data Web presence
4. Delivers Data Portability (using data access by value or data access by reference) across data silos (e.g. Web 2.0 style social networks)
5. Allows you make annotations about anything in your own Data Space(s) on the Web without exposure to RDF markup
6. A Briefcase feature that provides a WebDAV driven RDF Linked Data variant of functionality seen in Mac OS X Spotlight and WinFS with the addition of SPARQL compliance
7. Automatically generates RDFa in its (X)HTML pages
8. Blog, Wiki, WebDAV File Server, Shared Bookmarks, Calendar, and other applications that look and feel like Web 2.0 counterparts but emitt RDF Linked Data amongst a plethora of data exchange formats
9. Available as an EC2 AMI
10. etc..

OpenLink Ajax Toolkit functionality summary:

1. Provides binding to SQL, RDF, XML, and Web Services via Ajax Database Connectivity Layer (you only need an ODBC, JDBC, OLE-DB, ADO.NET, XMLA Driver, or Web Service on the backend for dynamic data access from Javascript)
2. All controls are Ajax Database Connectivity bound (widgets get their data from Ajax Database Connectivity data sources)
3. Bundled with Virtuoso and ODS installations.
4. etc.

OpenLink Data Explorer functionality summary

1. Distills entities associated with information resource style containers (e.g. Web Pages or files) as RDF Linked Data
2. Exposes the RDF based Linked Data graph associated with information resources (see the Linked Data behind Web pages)
3. Ubiquity commands for invoking the above
4. Available as a Hosted Service or Firefox Extension
5. Bundled with Virtuoso and ODS installations
6. etc.

Note:

Of course you could have simply looked up OpenLink Software's FOAF based Profile page (*note the Linked Data Explorer tab*), or simply passed the FOAF profile page URL to a Linked Data aware client application such as: OpenLink Data Explorer, Zitgist Data Viewer, Marbles, and Tabulator, and obtained information. Remember, OpenLink Software is an Entity of Type: foaf:Organization, on the burgeoning Linked Data Web :-)

Related

• Linked Data Planet Keynote (RDFa based remix edition)
• On The Cusp: A Global Review of the Semantic Web Industry.

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:

1. Amazon.com
2. Microsoft
3. Google
4. Apple

As is often the case these days, it's much easier to drop a blog post than it is to make a simple comment in an "old media" style data space :-(

My use of "old media" implies: a place that still seeks subscriber data (no OpenID etc..), for the umpteenth time, as the toll fee for discourse development and participation on the Web.

Anyway, here is what I attempted to post as a comment to Dan Grigorovici's post titled: Where is the Semantic Web Killer App?

Dan,

An intriguing post to say the least :-)

"Linked Data" and "Semantic Web" aren't synonymous, they are simply connected, infrastructure DNA-wise. You can have "Semantic Web" style graphs (i.e RDF Data) and not have "Linked Data" as per Linked Data deployment tenets and best practices, a very important point.

I've stated repeatedly, the "Linked Data" emphasis has more to do with focusing on a point of crystallization within the larger "Semantic Web" vision, so here is a quick recap:

What is Linked Data?

A term coined by TimBL that describes an application of HTTP to the time-tested process of "Data Access by Reference". "Linked Data" adds vital items to the "Data Access by Reference" pattern that have been erstwhile unattainable:

• The use of a Data Source Naming scoped to Database / Data Container Records as opposed to Tables, Views, Stored Procedures, Databases, and other Record Container tuple collections. Example: in ODBC / JDBC, a Data Source Name's scope stops at the Table / View level. In the Linked Data realm you get an added layer of granularity due to record level name scope
• Incorporation of HTTP into the Data Source Naming scheme, which injects the expanse of the Web into the Data Access Range of the Data Source Name (i.e. a Named Record); so you can reference a record's description directly via HTTP which is simply a major deal (to put things mildly).

So we have HTTP based URIs as the Data Sources Names for a "Linked Data Web" i.e a Web of inter-connected Data Source Names that de-emphasize the importance of their host containers (Compound Documents / Information Resources).

The business case or value proposition of "Linked Data" is synonymous with the value proposition of data access technologies such as ODBC, JDBC. ADO.NET, OLE-DB, XMLA, and others (enterprise or consumer) in relation to the Individual and Enterprise pursuit of agility; in a realm where data is growing exponentially, and the maximum processing time in a single day remains 24 hrs. Data Access & Data Integration are timeless challenges due to the following constants:

• Structured Data Schema Heterogeneity - we will always model the same things differently
• Dirtiness of Data within Structured Data Containers - we are error prone due to laziness / sloppiness, time constraints, and the inherent limitation of our DNA based CPUs when dealing with large volumes of data.

Note: The line between the Enterprise & Individuals continue to blur by the second, this is something I covered during my Linked Data Planet keynote, which is like most things I put on the Web (via this blog data space), is a live and practical demonstration of the virtues of Linked Data courtesy of RDFa, the Bibliographic Ontology, and dereferencable URIs (i.e. HTTP based Data Source Names for Documents and the Entities they host).

Related

• Linked Data FAQ - by Mike Bergman
• The Planetary Computer from Wired Magazine - which is basically the effect of Linked Data under a different label (note to Wired: "Tired of old Media repetitive Registrations" when seeking to make comments in the OpenID era!).