Re: A bit of bomb throwing....

From: Zack Rosen <>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 20:44:55 -0800

On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:44 PM, Prokopp, Christian wrote:

> It sounds like you are fighting windmills. The modern economy works
> the
> way it does (early adopter problems etc.) and the university have
> totally different interest than open source communities, companies or
> you and me. No one will change that (soon) for good reasons - it is
> not
> perfect but the best we know of.

I have yet to hear an explanation for why academic research should
not be applied towards real world problems in partnership with open-
source communities other than 'this is just not the way things are
done in academia'. Can someone please lay out the reasoning for me?

> I agree on the point that it is a pity that semantic web technology is
> not used in popular software. I think at least the permanent graph
> stores will come and then the whole thing might get a new spin because
> it is about penetration and critical mass too.

Can you give me pointers to more information about 'permanent graph

> Everyone who has the
> desire/need for new technology has the option to develop it or adapt
> existing ones (sesame etc.) into their projects. I don't understand
> why
> you did not take your resources and just started an implementation for

Because currently it is not feasible - the costs are simply to high
and the technology is remains unproven.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Zack Rosen []
> Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 4:39 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: A bit of bomb throwing....
> On Jan 16, 2006, at 10:12 PM, Prokopp, Christian wrote:
>> "Not the case. Im advocating that semantic web research be done
>> within
>> established open-source communities meeting 'real-world' needs of
>> partners instead of in isolation as examples."
>> SIMILE source is available as BSD license?!
> Emphasis on 'within established open-source communities'. This means
> not as orphaned piles of open-source code, this means implemented on
> widely used stacks of technology.
>> "What is the path to industry adoption of semantic web technologies?
>> All I see are obstacles: threatened business models (such as SAPs')
>> stalling and early adopters (such as SalesForce) opting for the much
>> simpler and easier approach of REST API's."
>> There is no such thing as a threatened business model that prevents
>> development - if the classic models would be so threatened everyone
>> would be throwing money at the semantic web to be the first (remember
>> the bubble).
>> Obviously the simple and easy approach is the best for business at
>> the
>> moment - no one can change that - market force is independent.
> You have two ends of the spectrum: Established corporations (SAP,
> Google, HP, etc.) and you have new VC backed entrepreneurs.
> The corporations will spend a bit of research money to fiddle with
> semantic web technology as a defensive strategy for when it breaks
> and things start to shift but they won't pull the trigger (adopt) the
> technology until it is proven. This is for good reason, companies
> bear a huge burden and a lot of risk by being the first adopters of
> new standards. So all the semantic web gets from these guys is a bit
> of a research budget and a pat on the back. What we miss out on is
> meaningful adoption or an adequate test bed to prove the technology.
> On the other end are the entrepreneurs. These guys would love to
> employ semantic web technologies to disrupt the industries and make a
> killing. Their are a couple problems with this though....
> 1) They don't have the money to partner with the Universities doing
> the research
> 2) The semantic web is only useful until people use it and nobody is
> using it yet
> 3) VC's would have to be crazy to invest in a venture banking on
> unproven standards with no substantial adoption that are not well
> supported by platform technology (LAMP, JSP, .NET)
> This leaves the Universities alone to bear the burden of proving
> their technology ideas.
>> "I think the much more aligned and willing allies of the semantic web
>> are the tinkerer's: open-source developers and entrepreneurs. In
>> fact
>> it is these people who are currently paving the way for automated
>> data-interchange on the web (RSS, microformats, etc)."
>> RSS is an extraordinary example - besides that the tinkerer are the
>> ones
>> paving the way for research and industry after checking out
>> millions of
>> ideas - something that would not be viable for the latter two. They
>> are
>> very important.
> Tinker's are very important indeed - but where are the effective
> partnerships between them and the semantic web research communities?
>> "We are eight years down this path. It isn't working - at-least not
>> fast
>> enough."
>> It is not working for you and not fast enough for you - everything is
>> relative. Sure everyone would like everything faster and better and
>> cheaper and ... (assuming we talk from a common western cultural
>> approach) ... That is what drives us and if it doesn't we would not
>> even have SIMILE but you can always see the glass half full or half
>> empty.
> I am very optimistic about the future. One way or another semantic
> web concepts will see the light of day :)
> -Zack
Received on Wed Jan 18 2006 - 04:44:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Thu Aug 09 2012 - 16:39:18 EDT