http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=self%20annotation&type=text&output=html
Kingsley Idehen's Blog Data Space
2024-03-29T13:08:03Z
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
About self annotation
7
1
10
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/661
<p>Playing around with GuruNet's "<a href="http://www.answers.com/">answers.com</a>" service earlier today reminded me of past positive experiences with similar internet bootstraps (Yahoo!, Altavista, Google et al).</p> <p>I have always believed that self-annotation will ultimately drive the realization of the semantic <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=semantic+web">web</a> vision. GuruNet is an interesting effort that should lead down this path.</p> <p>Here is GuruNet's <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=what+is+sql">answer </a>to the question: <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=what+is+sql">What Is SQL</a>?</p> <p>The <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=web+services">Web Services</a>, <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=xml">XML</a>, and <a href="http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=rdf">RDF</a> angles should be pretty obvious (I hope!).</p> <p>BTW - GuruNet does have a sync latency issue re. Wikipedia that it will need to address sooner rather than later.</p>
GuruNet --- kicking search up a notch (What is SQL?)
2006-06-22T12:56:58Z
2006-06-22T08:56:58-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/1165
<p>A defining characteristic of the Data Web (Context Oriented Web 3.0) is that it facilitates Meshups rather than Mashups.</p> <p>Quick Definitions:</p> <ul> Mashups - Brute force joining of disparate Web Data</ul> <ul> Meshups - Natural joining of disparate Web Data </ul> <p> Reasons for the distinction:</p> <ul>Mashups are Data Model oblivious.</ul> <ul>Meshups are Data Model driven.</ul> <p>Examples:</p> <ul> Mashups are based on RSS 2.0 most of the time (RSS 2.0 is at best a Tree Structure that contains untyped or meaning challenged links.</ul> <ul> Meshups are RDF based and the data is self describing since the links are typed (posses inherent meaning thereby providing context).</ul> <p>So what? You may be thinking.</p> <p>For starters, I can quite easily Mesh data from Googlebase (which emits RSS 2.0 or Atom) and other data sources with the Mapping Services from Yahoo!</p> <p>I can achieve this in minutes without writing a single line of code. I can do it because of the Data Model prowess of RDF (self-describing instance-data), the data interchange and transformation power of XML and XSLT respectively, the inherent power of XML based Web Services (REST or SOAP), and of course, having a Hybrid Server product like <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtuoso_Universal_Server">Virtuoso</a> at my disposal that delivers a cross platform solution for exploiting all of these standards coherently.</p> <p>I can share the self-describing describing data source that serves my Meshup. Try reusing the data presented by a Mashup via the same URL that you used to locate Mashup to get my drift.</p> <p>Demo Links:</p> <ol> <li> <a href="http://demo.openlinksw.com/DAV/JS/rdfbrowser/index.html#http%3A%2F%2Fdemo.openlinksw.com%2FDAV%2Fhome%2Fdemo%2FPublic%2FQueries%2FDataWeb%2Fgoogle_base_jobs_dataspace.isparql">Googlebase Query URL as an RDF Data Source</a> </li> <li>Perform a simple Data Mesh by adding (via link copy and paste) this <a href="http://upcoming.org/search/?q=ajax&scope=allmetros&type=Events">Upcoming.org Query Services URL for Ajax Events</a> to the RDF Browsers list of Data Sources (paste into the Data Source URI input field).</li> </ol> <p>What does this all mean?</p> <p>"Context" is the catalyst of the burgeoning Data Web (Semantic Web Layer - 1). It's the <a href="http://sramanamitra.com/blog/729">emerging appreciation of "Context"</a> that is driving the growing desire to increment Web versions from 2.0 to 3.0. It also the the very same "Context" that has been a preoccupation of <a href="http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity">Semantic Web vision</a> since its inception.</p> <p>The journey towards a more Semantic Web is all inclusive (all "ANDs" and no "ORs" re. participation).</p> <p>The Semantic Web is <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen/?id=887">self-annotating</a>. Web 2.0 has provided a huge contribution to the self annotation effort: on the Web we now have Data Spaces for Bookmarks (e.g del.icio.us), Image Galleries ( e.g Flickr), Discussion Forums (remember those comments associated with blog posts? ditto the pingbacks and trackbacks?), People Profiles (FOAF, XFN, del.icio.us, and those crumbling walled-gardens around many Social Networks), and more..</p> <p>A Web without granular access to Data is simply not a Web worth having (think about the menace of click-fraud and spam).</p>
Data Web, Googlebase, and Yahoo!
2007-03-22T23:14:55Z
2007-03-22T19:14:55-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/887
<blockquote><p><a href="http://theobvious.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/stop_whatever_y.html">Stop whatever you are doing ...</a>: " </p><xhtml:div xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><xhtml:p>.. and go and read <xhtml:a href="http://www.plasticbag.org/archives/2005/10/on_the_bbc_annotatable_audio_project.shtml">Tom Coates' explanation</xhtml:a> of his last project with the BBC. After 21 years working in broadcasting Ireckon this is one of the coolest things to happen for a very, very long time.</xhtml:p><xhtml:p>The ramifications of this will go very deep indeed."</xhtml:p></xhtml:div> <p>(Spotted Via <a href="http://theobvious.typepad.com/blog/">The Obvious?</a>.)</p></blockquote><p> Yes, the ramifications are deep! <a href="http://www.plasticbag.org/">Tom Coates'</a> screencast demonstrates an internal variation of an activity that is taking place on many fronts (concurrently) across the NET. I tend to refer to this effort as "<a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/127/index.vspx?page=&id=849">Self Annotation</a>"; the very process that will ultimately take us straight to "<a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=#39semantic%20web#39%20&type=text&output=html">Semantic Web</a>". It is going to happen much quicker than anticipated because technology is taking the pain out of metadata annotation (e.g. what you do when you tag everything that is ultimately URI accessible). Technology is basically delivering what <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell">Jon Udell</a> calls: <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2004/11/08.html">"reducing the activation threshold"</a>.</p><p>Using my comments above for context placement, I suggest you take a look at, or re-read <a href="http://weblog.infoworld.com/udell/2005/10/27.html#a1330">Jon Udell's post titled: Many Meanings of Metadata</a>. </p><p>Once again, the Web 2.0 brouhaha (in every sense of the word) is a reaction to a critical inflection that ultimately transitions the "Semantic Web" from "Mirage" to "Nirvana". Put differently (with humor in mind solely!), Web 2.0 is what I tend to call a "John the Baptist" paradigm, and we all know what happened to him :-)</p><p>Web 2.0 is a conduit to a far more important destination. The tendency to treat Web 2.0 as a destination rather than a conduit has contributed to the recent spate of <a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?SetTheBozoBit">Bozo bit</a> flipping posts all over the blogosphere (is this an attempt to behead John, metaphorically speaking?). Humor aside, a really important thing about the Web 2.0 situation is that when we make the quantum <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/link/evolution.html">evolutionary leap (internet time, mind you) to the "Semantic Web"</a> (or whatever groovy name we dig up for it in due course) we will certainly have a plethora of reference points (I mean <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=#39web%202.0#39&type=text&output=html">Web 2.0 URIs</a>) ensuring that we do not revisit the "Missing Link" evolutionary paradox :-)</p><p> BTW - You can see some example of my contribution to the ongoing annotation process by looking at: </p><ul><a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/127/index.vspx?page=summary">My Blog Summary Page</a></ul><ul><a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com/127/index.vspx?page=linkblog">My Linkblog</a></ul><ul><a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127">My Blog Search</a></ul><ul><a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/BlogAPI/services.vsmx">My Blog Query Service</a> (click on the enhanced view if you're a SOAP geek; also note blogid=127)</ul>
Self Annotation of Semantic Web (BBC Demo)
2006-06-22T12:56:58Z
2006-06-22T08:56:58-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/870
I have just read <a href="http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/PermaLink.aspx?guid=e481327e-5e8b-4b93-982e-db206222a2cf">Dare Obasanjo's recent contribution to the Web 2.0 clarification effort</a>. His post-processing of the <a href="http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html?page=1">Web 2.0 treatise by Tim O'Reilly</a> certainly got me thinking about the thorny issue of attempting to define Web 2.0. As most already know, the subject of Web 2.0 definition has been contentious from the onset (unfortunately for the wrong reasons: hype over substance): <cite><blockquote>just take a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_2.0">oxymoronic Wikipedia 2.0 imbroglio</a> to get my drift. In retrospect, I should have called on <a href="http://news.com.com/Esquire+wikis+article+on+Wikipedia/2100-1038_3-5885171.html">Esquire magazine</a> to get the Web 2.0 article going :-) ).</blockquote></cite> Anyway, back to Dare's analysis of Tim's 7 Web 2.0 litmus test items listed below: <blockquote><cite><ul><li> Services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability </li><li> Control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them </li><li> Trusting users as co-developers </li><li> Harnessing collective intelligence </li><li> Leveraging the long tail through customer self-service </li><li> Software above the level of a single device </li><li> Lightweight user interfaces, development models, AND business models </li></ul></cite></blockquote> And trimmed down to 3 by Dare: <blockquote><cite><ul dir="ltr"><li><div>Exposes Web services that can be accessed on any device or platform by any developer or user. RSS feeds, RESTful APIs and SOAP APIs are all examples of Web services. </div></li><li><div>Harnesses the collective knowledge of its user base to benefit users </div></li><li><div>Leverages the long tail through customer self-service </div></li></ul></cite></blockquote> Well, I would like to summarize this a little further using a few excerpts from my numerous contributions to the Web 2.0 talk page on Wikipedia (albeit mildly revised; see strikeouts etc.): <blockquote><cite>Web 2.0 is a web of <strike>executable</strike> service invocation endpoints (those Web Services URIs) and well-formed content (all of that RSS, Atom, RDF, XHTML, etc. based Web Content out on the NET). The <strike>executable</strike> service invocation endpoints and well-formed content are accessible via URIs. <p>Put in even simpler terms, Web 2.0 is an incarnation of the web defined by URIs for invoking Web Services and/or consuming or syndicating well-formed content.</p></cite><p>Looks like I've self edited my own definition in the process. :-)</p></blockquote><p>If you don't grok this definition then consider using it as a trigger for taking a closer look at the dynamics that genuinely differentiate Web 1.0 and Web 2.0.</p> In another Wikipedia "talk page" contribution (regarding "Web 2.0 Business Impact") I attempt to answer the question posed <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Web_2.0#Business_Impact">here</a>, which should also shed light on the premise of my definition above: <blockquote><cite><p>Web 1.0 was about web sites geared towards an interaction with human beings as opposed to computers. In a sense this mirrors the difference between HTML and XML.</p><p>A simple example (purchasing a book):</p><p>amazon.com provides value to you by enabling you to search and purchase the desired book online via the site http://www.amazon.com.</p><p>In the Web 1.0 era the process of searching for your desired book, and then eventually purchasing the book in question, required visible interaction with the site http://www.amazon.com. In today's Web 2.0 based Web the process of discovering a catalog of books, searching for your particular book of interest, and eventually purchasing the book, occurs via Web Services which amazon has chosen to expose via an executable endpoint (<i>the Web point of presence for exposing its Web Services</i>).</p><p>Direct interaction via http://www.amazon.com is no longer required. A weblog can quite easily associate keywords, tags, and post categories with items in amazon.com's catalogs. In addition, weblogs can also act as entry points for consuming the amazon.com value proposition (making books available for purchase online), by enabling you to purchase a book directly from the weblog (assuming the blog owner is an amazon associate etc..). Now compare the impact of this kind of value discovery and consumption cycle driven by software to the same process driven by humans interaction with a static or dynamic HTML page (Web 1.0 site). </p></cite></blockquote><p>To surmise, Web 2.0 is a reflection of the potential of XML expressed through the collective impact of Web Services (XML based distributed computing) and Well-formed Content (Blogosphere, Wikisphere, XHTML micro content etc.). The potential simply comes down to the ability to ultimately connect events, triggers, impulses (chatter, conversation, etc.), and data in general via URIs.</p><p>Let's never forget that XML is the reason why we have a blogosphere (RSS/Atom/RDF are applications of XML). Likewise, XML is also the reason why we have Web Services (doesn't matter what format).</p><p>As I have stated in the past, we must go by Web 2.0 en route what is popularly referred to as the Semantic Web (it will be known by another name by the time we get there; 3.0 or 4.0, who knows or cares?). At the current time, the prerequisite activity of self annotation is in full swing on the current Web, thanks to the inflective effects of Web 2.0.</p><p>BTW - Would this <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=semantic%20web&type=text&output=html">URI</a> to <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=semantic%20web&type=text&output=html">all Semantic Web related posts on my blog</a> pass the Web 2.0 litmus test? Likewise, this <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=web%202.0&type=text&output=html">URI</a> to all <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=web%202.0&type=text&output=html">Web 2.0 related posts</a>? I wonder :-)</p>
The Web 2.0 Litmus Test
2006-06-22T12:56:58Z
2006-06-22T08:56:58-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/849
<div align="left">After digesting <a href="http://obliqueangle.blogspot.com/">Oblique Angle</a>'s post titled: <a href="http://obliqueangle.blogspot.com/2005/05/world-wide-web-of-junk.html">World Wide Web of Junk</a>, it was nice to be reassured that I am not part of a shrinking minority of increasingly peturbed Web users. The post excerpt below is what compelled me to contribute some of my thoughts about the current state of the Web and a future "Semantic Web".</div> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <div align="left">The value of the Internet as a repository of useful information is very low. <a href="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/">Carl Shapiro </a>in <a href="http://www.inforules.com/">“Information Rules”</a> suggests that the amount of actually useful information on the Internet would fit within roughly 15,000 books, which is about half the size of an average mall bookstore. To put this in perspective: there are over 5 billion unique, static & publicly accessible web pages on the www. Apparently Only 6% of web sites have educational content (Maureen Henninger, <a href="http://www.mja.com.au/public/bookroom/1999/mullins/mullins.html">“Don’t just surf the net: Effective research strategies”. </a>UNSW Press). Even of the educational content only a fraction is of significant informational value.</div></blockquote> <div dir="ltr" align="left">Noise is taking over the Web at an alarming rate (to be expected in a sense ), and even though <a href="http://www.w3.org/People/Berners-Lee/">Tim Berners-Lee</a> (TBL) had the foresight to create the Web, many see nothing but futility in his vision for a "Semantic Web" (I don't!). A recent example of such commentary comes from Eric Nee's CIO article, titled: <span class="print_article_title"><a href="http://www.cioinsight.com/print_article2/0,2533,a=151806,00.asp">Web Future is Not Semantic, Or Overly Orderly</a>. I take issue with this article because, like most (who have been bitten at least once), I don't like mono culture</span><span class="print_article_title">. </span>This article inadvertently promotes "Google Mono Culture". I have excerpted the more frustrating parts of this article below:</div> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <div dir="ltr" align="left"> <p><em>..As Stanford students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin looked at the same problem—how to impart meaning to all the content on the Web—and decided to take a different approach. The two developed sophisticated software that relied on other clues to discover the meaning of content, such as which Web sites the information was linked to. And in 1998 they launched Google..</em></p></div></blockquote> <p dir="ltr">You mean noise ranking. Now, I don't think Larry and Sergey set out to do this, but Google page ranks are ultimately based on the concept of "Google Juice" (aka links). The value quotient of this algorithm is accelerating at internet speed (ironically, but naturally). Human beings are smarter than computers, we just process data (not information!) much slower that's all. Thus, we can conjure up numerous ways to bubble up the google link ranking algorithms in no time (as is the case today). </p> <blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr" align="left"><em>..What most differentiates Google's approach from Berners-Lee's is that Google doesn't require people to change the way they post content..</em></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr" align="left">The Semantic Web doesn't require anyone to change how they post content either! It just provides a roadmap for intelligent content managment and consumption through innovative products. </p><blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr" align="left"><em>..As Sergey Brin told Infoworld's 2002 CTO Forum, "I'd rather make progress by having computers under-stand what humans write, than by forcing -humans to write in ways that computers can understand." In fact, Google has not participated at all in the W3C's formulation of Semantic Web standards, says Eric Miller.. </em></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr" align="left">Semantic Content generated by next generation content managers will make more progress, and they certainly won't require humans to write any differently. If anything, humans will find the process quite refreshing as and when participation is required e.g. clicking bookmarklets associated with tagging services such as '<a href="http://del.icio.us">del.icio.us</a>', <a href="http://de.lirio.us">'de.lirio.us</a>', or <a href="http://www.unalog.com">Unalog</a> and others. But this is only the beginning, if I can click on a bookmarklet to post this blog post to a tagging service, then why wouldn't I be able to incorporate the "tag service post" into the same process that saves my blog post (the post is content that ends up in a <a href="http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com">content management system</a> aka blog server)? </p><blockquote style="margin-right: 0px;" dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr" align="left"><em>Yet Google's impact on the Web is so dramatic that it probably makes more sense to call the next generation of the Web the "Google Web" rather than the "Semantic Web."</em></p></blockquote> <p dir="ltr" align="left">Ah! so you think we really want the noisy "Google Web" as opposed to a federation of distributed Information- and Knowledgbases ala the "Semantic Web"? I don't think so somehow!</p> <p dir="ltr" align="left">Today we are generally excited about "tagging" but fail to see its correlation with the "Semantic Web", somehow? I have said this before, and I will say it again, the "Semantic Web" is going to be self-annotated by humans with the aid of intelligent and unobtrusive annotation technology solutions. These solutions will provide context and purpose by using our our social essence as currency. The annotation effort will be subliminal, there won't be a "Semantic Web Day" parade or anything of the like. It will appear before us all, in all its glory, without any fanfare. Funnily enough, we might not even call it "The Semantic Web", who cares? But it will have the distinct attributes of being very "Quiet" and highly "Valuable"; with no burden on "how we write", but constructive burden on "why we write" as part of the content contribution process (less Google/Yahoo/etc juice chasing for more knowledge assembly and exchange). </p><p dir="ltr" align="left">We are social creatures at our core. The Internet and Web have collectively reduced the connectivity hurdles that once made social network oriented solutions implausible. The eradication of these hurdles ultimately feeds the very impulses that trigger the critical self-annotation that is the basis of my fundamental belief in the realization of TBL's Semantic Web vision. </p><p dir="ltr" align="left"> </p>
World Wide Web of Junk
2006-06-22T12:56:58Z
2006-06-22T08:56:58-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/1363
<p>Unfortunately, I could only spend 4 days at the recent <a href="http://www2008.org/" id="link-id196acf60">WWW2008</a> event in <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Beijing" id="link-id1974fe28">Beijing</a> (I departed the morning following the <a href="http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2008/" id="link-id1863f858">Linked Data Workshop</a>), so I couldn't take my slot on the "Commercializing the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web" id="link-id18990f90">Semantic Web</a> panel" etc.. Anyway, thanks to the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web" id="link-id0x18f29310">Web</a> I can still inject my points of view in the broad <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web">Web</a> based discourse. Well so I hoped, when I attempted to post a comment to Paul Miller's ZDNet domain hosted <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Blog" id="link-id180d6750">blog</a> thread titled: <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/semantic-web/?p=132" id="link-id12d206c0">Commercialising the Semantic Web</a>.</p> <p>Unfortunately, the cost of completing ZDNet's unwieldy signup process simply exceeded the benefits of dropping my comments in their particular space :-( Thus, I'll settle for a trackback ping instead.</p> <p>What follows is the cut and paste of my intended comment contributions to Paul's post.</p> <p>Paul,</p> <p> As discussed earlier this week during <a href="http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2008/05/kingsley-idehen-talks-about-openlink-software-linked-data-and-the-semantic-web.php" id="link-id1332fb48">our podcast session</a>, commercialization of <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web" id="link-id17382338">Semantic Web</a> technology shouldn't be a mercurial matter at this stage in the game :-) It's all about looking at how it provides value :-)</p> <p>From the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_Data" id="link-id10d4f4a8">Linked Data</a> angle, the ability to produce, dispatch, and exploit "<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Context_%28language_use%29" id="link-id13bed160">Context</a>" across an array of "Perspectives" from a plethora of disparate <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id1731e5f0">data</a> sources on the Web and/or behind corporate firewalls, offers immense commercial value.</p> <p> <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/searchmonkey/" id="link-id1975d248">Yahoo's Searchmonkey</a> effort will certainly bring clarity to some of the points I made during the podcast re. the role of URIs as "value consumption tickets" (<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id173eb7b0">Data</a> Services are exposed via URIs). There has to be a trigger (in user space) that compels Web users to seek broader, or simply varied, perspectives as a response to <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id0x1c7e7f60">data</a> encountered on the Web. Yahoo! is about to put this light on in a big way (imho).</p> <p>The "self annotating" nature of the Web is what ultimately drives the manifestation of the long awaited <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web" id="link-id0xa18a83e8">Semantic Web</a>. I believe I postulated about <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=self%20annotation&type=text&output=html" id="link-id173d7458">"Self Annotation & the Semantic Web" in a number of prior posts</a> which, by the way, should be <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&type=text&kwds=self%20annotation&OpenSearch" id="link-id10b12208">DataRSS compatible right now</a> due to Yahoo's support of OpenSearch <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id0x1b8412e8">Data</a> Providers (which this <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Blog" id="link-id170b8df8">Blog</a> Space has been for eons).</p> <p>Today, have many communities adding strucuture to the Web (via their respective tools of preference) without explicitly realizing what they are contributing. Every RSS/Atom feed, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tag" id="link-id183d5178">Tag</a>, Weblog, Shared Bookmark, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/WikiWord" id="link-id10c5e758">Wikiword</a>, Microformat, Microformat++ (<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Embedded_RDF" id="link-id16d8ee40">eRDF</a> or <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDFa" id="link-id1059a688">RDFa</a>), <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/GRDDL" id="link-id1090ae10">GRDDL</a> stylesheet, and RDFizer etc.. is a piece of structured <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data">data</a>.</p> <p>Finally, the different communities are all finding ways to work together (thank heavens!) and the results are going to be cataclysmic when it all plays out :-)</p> <p>Data, Structure, and Extraction are the keys to the Semantic Life! First you get the Data in a container (<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Information" id="link-id180e5648">information</a> resource), and then you add Structure to the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Information" id="link-id103801e0">information</a> resource (RSS, Atom, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Microformats" id="link-id17825e40">microformats</a>, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDFa" id="link-id189a8738">RDFa</a>, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Embedded_RDF" id="link-id1933d5c0">eRDF</a>, SIOC, FOAF, etc.), once you have Structure RDFization (i.e. transformation to <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_Data" id="link-id19744878">Linked Data</a>) is a synch thanks to <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Resource_Description_Framework" id="link-id180dde30">RDF</a> Middleware (as per <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&type=text&kwds=self%20annotation&OpenSearch" id="link-id16dc3130">earlier RDF middleware posts</a>).</p>
Commercializing the Semantic Web
2008-05-18T14:58:26Z
2008-05-18T10:58:26.000003-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com
http://www.openlinksw.com/dataspace/kidehen@openlinksw.com/weblog/kidehen@openlinksw.com%27s%20BLOG%20%5B127%5D/1362
<p>Unfortunately, I could only spend 4 days at the recent <a href="http://www2008.org/" id="link-id196acf60">WWW2008</a> event in <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Beijing" id="link-id1974fe28">Beijing</a> (I departed the morning following the <a href="http://events.linkeddata.org/ldow2008/" id="link-id1863f858">Linked Data Workshop</a>), so I couldn't take my slot on the "Commercializing the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web" id="link-id18990f90">Semantic Web</a> panel" etc.. Anyway, thanks to the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/World_Wide_Web">Web</a> I can still inject my points of view in the broad Web based discourse. Well so I hoped, when I attempted to post a comment to Paul Miller's ZDNet domain hosted <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Blog" id="link-id180d6750">blog</a> thread titled: <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/semantic-web/?p=132" id="link-id12d206c0">Commercialising the Semantic Web</a>.</p> <p>Unfortunately, the cost of completing ZDNet's unwieldy signup process simply exceeded the benefits of dropping my comments in their particular space :-( Thus, I'll settle for a trackback ping instead.</p> <p>What follows is the cut and paste of my intended comment contributions to Paul's post.</p> <p>Paul,</p> <p> As discussed earlier this week during <a href="http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/2008/05/kingsley-idehen-talks-about-openlink-software-linked-data-and-the-semantic-web.php" id="link-id1332fb48">our podcast session</a>, commercialization of <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web" id="link-id17382338">Semantic Web</a> technology shouldn't be a mercurial matter at this stage in the game :-) It's all about looking at how it provides value :-)</p> <p>From the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_Data" id="link-id10d4f4a8">Linked Data</a> angle, the ability to produce, dispatch, and exploit "<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Context_%28language_use%29" id="link-id13bed160">Context</a>" across an array of "Perspectives" from a plethora of disparate <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id1731e5f0">data</a> sources on the Web and/or behind corporate firewalls, offers immense commercial value.</p> <p> <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/searchmonkey/" id="link-id1975d248">Yahoo's Searchmonkey</a> effort will certainly bring clarity to some of the points I made during the podcast re. the role of URIs as "value consumption tickets" (<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id173eb7b0">Data</a> Services are exposed via URIs). There has to be a trigger (in user space) that compels Web users to seek broader, or simply varied, perspectives as a response to <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data" id="link-id0x1c7e7f60">data</a> encountered on the Web. Yahoo! is about to put this light on in a big way (imho).</p> <p>The "self annotating" nature of the Web is what ultimately drives the manifestation of the long awaited <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Semantic_Web" id="link-id0xa18a83e8">Semantic Web</a>. I believe I postulated about <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&q=self%20annotation&type=text&output=html" id="link-id173d7458">"Self Annotation & the Semantic Web" in a number of prior posts</a> which, by the way, should be <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&type=text&kwds=self%20annotation&OpenSearch" id="link-id10b12208">DataRSS compatible right now</a> due to Yahoo's support of OpenSearch <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Data">Data</a> Providers (which this <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Blog" id="link-id170b8df8">Blog</a> Space has been for eons).</p> <p>Today, have many communities adding strucuture to the Web (via their respective tools of preference) without explicitly realizing what they are contributing. Every RSS/Atom feed, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tag" id="link-id183d5178">Tag</a>, Weblog, Shared Bookmark, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/WikiWord" id="link-id10c5e758">Wikiword</a>, Microformat, Microformat++ (<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Embedded_RDF" id="link-id16d8ee40">eRDF</a> or <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDFa" id="link-id1059a688">RDFa</a>), <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/GRDDL" id="link-id1090ae10">GRDDL</a> stylesheet, and RDFizer etc.. is a piece of structured data.</p> <p>Finally, the different communities are all finding ways to work together (thank heavens!) and the results are going to be cataclysmic when it all plays out :-)</p> <p>Data, Structure, and Extraction are the keys to the Semantic Life! First you get the Data in a container (<a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Information" id="link-id180e5648">information</a> resource), and then you add Structure to the <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Information" id="link-id103801e0">information</a> resource (RSS, Atom, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Microformats" id="link-id17825e40">microformats</a>, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/RDFa" id="link-id189a8738">RDFa</a>, <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Embedded_RDF" id="link-id1933d5c0">eRDF</a>, SIOC, FOAF, etc.), once you have Structure RDFization (i.e. transformation to <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Linked_Data" id="link-id19744878">Linked Data</a>) is a synch thanks to <a href="http://dbpedia.org/resource/Resource_Description_Framework" id="link-id180dde30">RDF</a> Middleware (as per <a href="http://www.openlinksw.com/weblog/public/search.vspx?blogid=127&type=text&kwds=self%20annotation&OpenSearch" id="link-id16dc3130">earlier RDF middleware posts</a>).</p>
Commercializing the Semantic Web
2008-05-16T20:15:29Z
2008-05-16T16:15:29.000001-04:00
Kingsley Uyi Idehen
kidehen@openlinksw.com