Details

Kingsley Uyi Idehen
Lexington, United States

Subscribe

Post Categories

Subscribe

E-Mail:

Recent Articles

Display Settings

articles per page.
order.
Web 2.0's Open Data Access Conundrum

Open Data Access and Web 2.0 have a very strange relationship that continues to blur the lines of demarcation between where Web 2.0 ends and where Web.Next (i.e Web 3.0, Semantic/Data Web, Web of Databases etc.) starts. But before I proceed, let me attempt to define Web 2.0 one more time:

A phase in the evolution web usage patterns that emphasizes Web Services based interaction between “Web Users” and “Points of Web Presence” over traditional “Web Users” and “Web Sites” based interaction. Basically, a transition from visual site interaction to presence based interaction.

BTW - Dare Obasanjo also commented about Web usage patterns in his post titled: The Two Webs. Where he concluded that we had a dichotomy along the lines of: HTTP-for-APIs (2.0) and HTTP-for-Browsers (1.0). Which Jon Udell evolved into: HTTP-Services-Web and HTTP-Intereactive-Web during our recent podcast conversation.

With definitions in place, I will resume my quest to unveil the aforementioned Web 2.0 Data Access Conundrum:

  • Emphasis on XML's prowess in the realms of Data and Protocol Modeling alongside Data Representation. Especially as SOAP or REST styles of Web Services and various XML formats (RSS 0.92/1.0/1.1/2.0, Atom, OPML, OCS etc.) collectively define the Web 2.0 infrastructure landscape
  • Where a modicum of Data Access appreciation and comprehension does exist it is inherently compromised by business models that mandate some form of “Walled Gardens” and “Data Silos”
  • Mash-ups are a response to said “Walled Gardens” and “Data Silos” . Mash-ups by definition imply combining things that were not built for recombination.

As you can see from the above, Open Data access isn't genuinely compatible with Web 2.0.

We can also look at the same issue by way of the popular M-V-C (Model View Controller) pattern. Web 2.0 is all about the “V” and “C” with a modicum of “M” at best (data access, open data access, and flexible open data access are completely separate things). The “C” items represent application logic exposed by SOAP or REST style web services etc. I'll return to this later in this post.

What about Social Networking you must be thinking? Isn't this a Web 2.0 manifestation? Not at all (IMHO). The Web was developed / invented by Tim Berners-Lee to leverage the “Network Effects” potential of the Internet for connecting People and Data. Social Networking on the other hand, is simply one of several ways by which construct network connections. I am sure we all accept the fact that connections are built for many other reasons beyond social interaction. That said, we also know that through social interactions we actually develop some of our most valuable relationships (we are social creatures after-all).

The Web 2.0 Open Data Access impedance reality is ultimately going to be the greatest piece of tutorial and usecase material for the Semantic Web. I take this position because it is human nature to seek Freedom (in unadulterated form) which implies the following:

  • Access Data from a myriad of data sources (irrespective of structural differences at the database level)
  • Mesh (not Mash) data in new and interesting ways
  • Share the meshed data with as many relevant people as possible for social, professional, political, religious, and other reasons
  • Construct valuable networks based on data oriented connections

Web 2.0 by definition and use case scenarios is inherently incompatible with the above due to the lack of Flexible and Open Data Access.

If we take the definition of Web 2.0 (above) and rework it with an appreciation Flexible and Open Data Access you would arrive at something like this:

A phase in the evolution of the web that emphasizes interaction between “Web Users” and “Web Data” facilitated by Web Services based APIs and an Open & Flexible Data Access Model “.


In more succinct form:

A pervasive network of people connected by data or data connected by people.


Returning to M-V-C and looking at the definition above, you now have a complete of ”M“ which is enigmatic in Web 2.0 and the essence of the Semantic Web (Data and Context).

To make all of this possible a palatable Data Model is required. The model of choice is the Graph based RDF Data Model - not to be mistaken for the RDF/XML serialization which is just that, a data serialization that conforms to the aforementioned RDF data model.

The Enterprise Challenge

Web 2.0 cannot and will not make valuable inroads into the the enterprise because enterprises live and die by their ability to exploit data. Weblogs, Wikis, Shared Bookmarking Systems, and other Web 2.0 distributed collaborative applications profiles are only valuable if the data is available to the enterprise for meshing (not mashing).

A good example of how enterprises will exploit data by leveraging networks of people and data (social networks in this case) is shown in this nice presentation by Accenture's Institute for High Performance Business titled: Visualizing Organizational Change.

Web 2.0 commentators (for the most part) continue to ponder the use of Web 2.0 within the enterprise while forgetting the congruency between enterprise agility and exploitation of people & data networks (The very issue emphasized in this original Web vision document by Tim Berners-Lee). Even worse, they remain challenged or spooked by the Semantic Web vision because they do not understand that Web 2.0 is fundamentally a Semantic Web precursor due to Open Data Access challenges. Web 2.0 is one of the greatest demonstrations of why we need the Semantic Web at the current time.

Finally, juxtapose the items below and you may even get a clearer view of what I am an attempting to convey about the virtues of Open Data Access and the inflective role it plays as we move beyond Web 2.0:

Information Management Proposal - Tim Berners-Lee
Visualizing Organizational Change - Accenture Institute of High Performance Business

# PermaLink Comments [0]
09/02/2006 16:47 GMT-0500 Modified: 11/16/2006 15:51 GMT-0500
The WWW Proposal and RDF: Then and Now (circa 1999)

I've just re-read an article penned by Dan Brickley in 1999 titled: The WWW Proposal and RDF: Then and Now, that retains its prescience to this very day. Ironically I stumbled across this timeless piece while revisiting the RSS name imbroglio that gave us a simple syndication format (RSS 2.0) that will ultimately implode (IMHO) since "Simple" is ultimately short lived when dealing with attention challenged end-users that are always assumed to be dumb when in fact they are simply ambivalent.

I was compelled to go back to the RSS 2.0 imbroglio when I came across Dave Winer's comments re. "the SEC attempting to reinvent RSS 2.0..." response to Jon Udell's recent XBRL article.

Although I don't believe in complex entry points into complex technology realms, I do subscribe to the approach where developers deal with the complexity associated with a problem domain while hiding said complexity from ambivalent end-users via coherent interfaces -- which does not always imply User Interface.

XBRL is a great piece of work that addresses the complex problem domain of Financial Reporting. The only thing it's missing right now is an Ontology that facilitates RDF Data Model based XBRL Schema and Instance Data which ultimately makes XBRL data available to RDF query languages such as SPARQL. This line of thought implies, for instance, an XML Schema to OWL Ontology Mapping for Schema Data (as explained in a white paper by the VSIS Group at the university of Hamburg) leaving the Instance Data to be generated in a myriad of ways that includes XML to RDF and/or XML->SQL->RDF.

As I stated in an earlier post: we should not mistake ambivalence to lack of intelligence. Assuming "Simple" is always right at all times is another way of subscribing to this profound misconception. You know, assuming the world was flat (as opposed to geoid) was quite palatable at some point in the history of mankind, I wonder what would have happened if we held on to this point of view to this day because of its "Simplicity"?

# PermaLink Comments [0]
08/28/2006 06:20 GMT-0500 Modified: 09/30/2006 16:27 GMT-0500
Value vs Source

(Via David Warlick.)

:

Value vs Source: "

I think we’re all sorta jumping around the same bush. It’s been a good dance because I’ve learned some things. First of all, nothing’s simple and it isn’t getting any simpler. There are no rules any more and as much as I’d like to come up with some kind of all encompassing unified field theory of ethical research method, I know that smarter people than me have already done a better job, and none of it is perfect.

Please allow me to do something kinda strange. I want to look backward for some clues. When I was young, my Dad loved to build things. He was the preeminent do-it-yourselfer. Every weekend, he had a building project, and every Saturday morning he loaded us boys into the station wagon and off we went to the Lowes Hardware Store in Shelby, where he bought the tools and materials he would need for the project.

He did not have a list of criterial for selecting his materials, because every project was different — the goal was different. If he had selected everything based on the same criteria, then everything he built would have been made with pine shelving, two-penny finishing nails, and all the work would have been done with a Craftsman common nail hammer. Instead, he selected his building materials and tools based on the goal of the project. To do otherwise would have resulted in a product that did not last long, and that would have been unethical.

Bill EdwardsYears later, I studied under the best teacher I ever had, Mr. Bill Edwards — my industrial arts teacher. His technique was to help us learn industrial arts skills by helping us to build something of value. I built a kayak. Other students built book shelves, stools, and chess boards. Two friends of mine built a life-size replica of a Gemini Space Capsule. Mr. Edwards taught us to set goals and to make decisions based on those goals.

This was the perfect way to teach industrial arts skills, since we were in the industrial age. If Edwards had taught us in the same way that my information arts teachers were teaching, he would have put a stack of lumber on our desks and asked us to practice driving nails. But he taught us by putting us in the industry. We should be teaching today by putting students in the industry of information. We need to stop teaching science and start teaching students to be scientists. Stop teaching history, but rather teach to be historians. Stop teaching students to be researchers, and instead, teach them to solve problems and accomplish goals using information.

I am certain that there were brands of wood and nails that my father wouldn’t buy, because he couldn’t depend on them. He swore by Craftsman tools. To build with materials that were unreliable would have been unethical. But his conscious work in finding and selecting materials was based on the goal at hand. All else pointed to that criteria.

It is critical to know and understand the source of the information. But what is it about the source that helps you accomplish your goal. It’s important to understand when the information was generated and published. But what is it about ‘when’ that helps you accomplish your goal. It’s important to understand what the information is made of, and what it is about its format and how you can use it that helps you accomplish your goal. It’s important to understand the information’s cultural, economic, environmental, and emotional context, and what it is about the context that helps you accomplish your goal. All aspects remain critical, but its problem solving and goal achieving that children need to be doing, not just hoop-jumping in their schools. The need to look for the information’s value as a tool for ethically accomplishing their goals.


Technorati Tags: ,



Portions of this post come from Raw Materials for the Mind ISBN #1-4116-2795-4

Support independent publishing: buy this book on Lulu.
"
# PermaLink Comments [0]
07/29/2006 22:19 GMT-0500 Modified: 07/29/2006 18:55 GMT-0500
RDF's History

We are getting very close to a Semantic Web watershed moment (IMHO). Thus, for the purpose of historic record, I would like to create a public bookmark to Tim Bray's 2003 post titled: RDF.net Challenge that also contains a nice section about the History of RDF.

Note to Tim:

Is the RDF.net domain deal still on? I know it's past 1st Jan 2006, but do bear in mind that the critical issue of a broadly supported RDF Query Language only took significant shape approximately 13 months ago (in the form of SPARQL), and this is all so critical to the challenge you posed in 2003.

RDF.net could become a point of semantic-web-presence through which the benefits of SPARQL compliant Triple|Quad Stores, Shared Ontologies, and SPARQL Protocol are unveiled in their well intended glory :-).

# PermaLink Comments [0]
07/13/2006 21:42 GMT-0500 Modified: 07/13/2006 19:04 GMT-0500
Standards as social contracts

Standards as social contracts: "Looking at Dave Winer's efforts in evangelizing OPML, I try to draw some rough lines into what makes a de-facto standard. De Facto standards are made and seldom happen on their own. In this entry, I look back at the history of HTML, RSS, the open source movement and try to draw some lines as to what makes a standard.

"

(Via Tristan Louis.)

I posted a comment to the Tristan Louis' post along the following lines:

Analysis is spot on re. the link between de facto standardization and bootstrapping. Likewise, the clear linkage between boostrapping and connected communities (a variation of the social networking paradigm).

Dave built a community around a XML content syndication and subscription usecase demo that we know today as the blogosphere. Superficially, one may conclude that Semantic Web vision has suffered to date from a lack a similar bootstrap effort. Whereas in reality, we are dealing with "time and context" issues that are critical to the base understanding upon which a "Dave Winer" style bootstrap for the Semantic Web would occur.

Personally, I see the emergence of Web 2.0 (esp. the mashups phenomenon) as the "time and context" seeds from which the Semantic Web bootstrap will sprout. I see shared ontologies such as FOAF and SIOC leading the way (they are the RSS 2.0's of the Semantic Web IMHO).

# PermaLink Comments [0]
07/04/2006 17:25 GMT-0500 Modified: 07/04/2006 14:53 GMT-0500
My podcast conversation with Jon Udell

Jon and I had a recent chat yesterday that is now available in Podcast form.

"In my fourth Friday podcast we hear from Kingsley Idehen, CEO of OpenLink Software. I wrote about OpenLink's universal database and app server, Virtuoso, back in 2002 and 2003. Earlier this month Virtuoso became the first mature SQL/XML hybrid to make the transition to open source. The latest incarnation of the product also adds SPARQL (a semantic web query language) to its repertoire. ..."

(Via Jon's Radio.)

I would like to make an important clarification re. the GData Protocol and what is popularly dubbed as "Adam Bosworth's fingerprints." I do not believe in a one solution (a simple one for the sake of simplicity) to a deceptively complex problem. Virtuoso supports Atom 1.0 (syndication only at the current time) and Atom 0.3 (syndication and publication which have been in place for years).
BTW - the GData Protocol and Atom 1.0 publishing support will be delivered in both the Open Source and Commercial Edition updates to Virtuoso next week (very little work due to what's already in place).

I make the clarification above to eliminate the possibility of assuming mutual exclusivity of my perspective/vison and Adam's (Jon also makes this important point when he speaks about our opinions being on either side of a spectrum/continuum). I simply want to broaden the scope of this discussion. I am a profound believer in the Semantic Web / Data Web vision, and I predict that we will be querying the Googlebase via SPARQL in the not to distant future (this doesn't mean that netizens will be forced to master SPARQL, absolutely not! But there will be conduit technologies that deal with matter).

Side note: I actually last spoke with Adam at the NY Hilton in 2000 (the day I unveiled Virtuoso to the public for the first time, in person). We bumped into each other and I told him about Virtuoso (at the time the big emphasis was SQL to XML and the vocabulary we had chosen re. SQL extension...), and he told me about his departure from Microsoft and the commencement of his new venture (CrossGain prior to his stint at BEA), what struck me even more was his interest in Linux and Open Source (bearing in mind this was about 3 or so week after he departed Microsoft.)

If you are encountering Virtuoso for the first time via this post or Jon's, please make time to read the product history article on the Virtuoso Wiki (which is one of many Virtuoso based applications that make up our soon to be released OpenLink DataSpace offering).

That said, I better go listen to the podcast :-)

# PermaLink Comments [1]
04/28/2006 14:43 GMT-0500 Modified: 07/21/2006 07:22 GMT-0500
My podcast conversation with Jon Udell

Jon and I had a recent chat yesterday that is now available in Podcast form.

"In my fourth Friday podcast we hear from Kingsley Idehen, CEO of OpenLink Software. I wrote about OpenLink's universal database and app server, Virtuoso, back in 2002 and 2003. Earlier this month Virtuoso became the first mature SQL/XML hybrid to make the transition to open source. The latest incarnation of the product also adds SPARQL (a semantic web query language) to its repertoire. ..."

(Via Jon's Radio.)

I would like to make an important clarification re. the GData Protocol and what is popularly dubbed as "Adam Bosworth's fingerprints." I do not believe in a one solution (a simple one for the sake of simplicity) to a deceptively complex problem. Virtuoso supports Atom 1.0 (syndication only at the current time) and Atom 0.3 (syndication and publication which have been in place for years).
BTW - the GData Protocol and Atom 1.0 publishing support will be delivered in both the Open Source and Commercial Edition updates to Virtuoso next week (very little work due to what's already in place).

I make the clarification above to eliminate the possibility of assuming mutual exclusivity of my perspective/vison and Adam's (Jon also makes this important point when he speaks about our opinions being on either side of a spectrum/continuum). I simply want to broaden the scope of this discussion. I am a profound believer in the Semantic Web / Data Web vision, and I predict that we will be querying the Googlebase via SPARQL in the not to distant future (this doesn't mean that netizens will be forced to master SPARQL, absolutely not! But there will be conduit technologies that deal with matter).

Side note: I actually last spoke with Adam at the NY Hilton in 2000 (the day I unveiled Virtuoso to the public for the first time, in person). We bumped into each other and I told him about Virtuoso (at the time the big emphasis was SQL to XML and the vocabulary we had chosen re. SQL extension...), and he told me about his departure from Microsoft and the commencement of his new venture (CrossGain prior to his stint at BEA), what struck me even more was his interest in Linux and Open Source (bearing in mind this was about 3 or so week after he departed Microsoft.)

If you are encountering Virtuoso for the first time via this post or Jon's, please make time to read the product history article on the Virtuoso Wiki (which is one of many Virtuoso based applications that make up our soon to be released OpenLink DataSpace offering).

That said, I better go listen to the podcast :-)

# PermaLink Comments [0]
04/28/2006 14:43 GMT-0500 Modified: 06/29/2006 10:14 GMT-0500
Virtuoso is Officially Open Source!

I am pleased to unveil (officially) the fact that Virtuoso is now available in Open Source form.

What Is Virtuoso?

A powerful next generation server product that implements otherwise distinct server functionality within a single server product. Think of Virtuoso as the server software analog of a dual core processor where each core represents a traditional server functionality realm.

Where did it come from?

The Virtuoso History page tells the whole story.

What Functionality Does It Provide?

The following:
    1. Object-Relational DBMS Engine (ORDBMS like PostgreSQL and DBMS engine like MySQL)
    2. XML Data Management (with support for XQuery, XPath, XSLT, and XML Schema)
    3. RDF Triple Store (or Database) that supports SPARQL (Query Language, Transport Protocol, and XML Results Serialization format)
    4. Service Oriented Architecture (it combines a BPEL Engine with an ESB)
    5. Web Application Server (supports HTTP/WebDAV)
    6. NNTP compliant Discussion Server
And more. (see: Virtuoso Web Site)

90% of the aforementioned functionality has been available in Virtuoso since 2000 with the RDF Triple Store being the only 2006 item.

What Platforms are Supported

The Virtuoso build scripts have been successfully tested on Mac OS X (Universal Binary Target), Linux, FreeBSD, and Solaris (AIX, HP-UX, and True64 UNIX will follow soon). A Windows Visual Studio project file is also in the works (ETA some time this week).

Why Open Source?

Simple, there is no value in a product of this magnitude remaining the "best kept secret". That status works well for our competitors, but absolutely works against the legions of new generation developers, systems integrators, and knowledge workers that need to be aware of what is actually achievable today with the right server architecture.

What Open Source License is it under?

GPL version 2.

What's the business model?

Dual licensing.

The Open Source version of Virtuoso includes all of the functionality listed above. While the Virtual Database (distributed heterogeneous join engine) and Replication Engine (across heterogeneous data sources) functionality will only be available in the commercial version.

Where is the Project Hosted?

On SourceForge.

Is there a product Blog?

Of course!

Up until this point, the Virtuoso Product Blog has been a covert live demonstration of some aspects of Virtuoso (Content Management). My Personal Blog and the Virtuoso Product Blog are actual Virtuoso instances, and have been so since I started blogging in 2003.

Is There a product Wiki?

Sure! The Virtuoso Product Wiki is also an instance of Virtuoso demonstrating another aspect of the Content Management prowess of Virtuoso.

What About Online Documentation?

Yep! Virtuoso Online Documentation is hosted via yet another Virtuoso instance. This particular instance also attempts to demonstrate Free Text search combined with the ability to repurpose well formed content in a myriad of forms (Atom, RSS, RDF, OPML, and OCS).

What about Tutorials and Demos?

The Virtuoso Online Tutorial Site has operated as a live demonstration and tutorial portal for a numbers of years. During the same timeframe (circa. 2001) we also assembled a few Screencast style demos (their look feel certainly show their age; updates are in the works).

BTW - We have also updated the Virtuoso FAQ and also released a number of missing Virtuoso White Papers (amongst many long overdue action items).

# PermaLink Comments [1]
04/11/2006 18:01 GMT-0500 Modified: 07/21/2006 07:22 GMT-0500
History of Programming Languages
History of Programming Languages Poster.
Tags:
# PermaLink Comments [0]
03/15/2006 04:12 GMT-0500 Modified: 06/22/2006 08:56 GMT-0500
Ted Nelson's Perspective on Technology Lock-in

Ted Nelson expresses technology lock-in dislike. This applies to Operating System, Programming Language, Database, or any other forms.

Amen!
# PermaLink Comments [0]
02/15/2006 19:50 GMT-0500 Modified: 06/22/2006 08:56 GMT-0500
 <<     | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |     >>
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso Universal Server
Running on Linux platform
The posts on this weblog are my personal views, and not those of OpenLink Software.