On 7/20/12 4:06 AM, Sebastian Schaffert wrote:
Am 19.07.2012 um 20:50 schrieb Kingsley Idehen:I completely understand and appreciate your desire (which I share) to see a mature landscape with a range of linked data sources. I can also understand how a database or spreadsheet can potentially offer fine-grained data access - your examples do illustrate the point very well indeed! However, if we want to build a sustainable business, the decision to build these features needs to be demand driven.I disagree. Note, I responded because I assumed this was a new Linked Data service. But it clearly isn't. Thus, I don't want to open up a debate about Linked Data virtues if you incorrectly assume they should be *demand driven*. Remember, this is the Linked Open Data (LOD) forum. We've long past the issue of *demand driven* over here, re. Linked Data.But I agree. A technology that is not able to fire proof its usefulness in a demand driven / problem driven environment is maybe interesting from an academic standpoint but otherwise not really useful.
So are you claiming that Linked Data hasn't fire proofed its usefulness in a demand drive / problem driven environment?
And if you look at the recent troubles with Semantic Web business models you see the consequences.
Please clarify what you mean as that statement is quite unclear. What "recent troubles" are you speaking (so definitively) about re., the business model scalability and viability of Linked Data and/or the broader Semantic Web vision?
You are not the only one in "the community", so please don't say "we've passed the issue".
Of course I am not the only one in the community. But, I think you are missing a critical point: this forum/list/community is about Linked Data. Thus, I would expect product announcements to be related to Linked Data, at the very least. What's really confusing to me, right now, is the fact that I simply sought an actual Linked Data connection from Hatish (assuming there had to be one somewhere), received push-back about "demand" and a string of replies that are responding something else inferred from my response .
I'd say we have not even really started with the issue, we've just pushed some technology out there, not knowing yet whether it is really useful.
I disagree, and here are some very basic examples of proof that the utility (usefulness) and demand (need) for Linked Data are yesterday's topic:
1. Facebook -- every data object in this data space has a Linked Data URI, and by that I mean all 850 million+ profile alongside other data objects that represent other aspects of Faceook profiles
2. Various Govts. worldwide -- lead by US and UK govt efforts enhancing Open Data by adhering the principles espoused in TimBL's Linked Data meme
3. Rest of the LOD cloud which now tops 55+ billion triples and growing every second.
On the other hand Harish is giving us one example of where at least part of the technology *might* be useful and I appreciate this very much. In general, I also prefer acting over talking. ;-)
Useful, of course. But useful in a manner that has relevance to Linked Data is what I sought from my questions. There is no Linked Data in that solution, and all wanted to do was foster dialog that would encourage production of Linked Data as others have already done -- for years -- re. data from Crunchbase.
My response included examples of what's been achieved with Cruncbase data for a very long time, so I hoped he would see the virtues in doing something similar such that in classic Linked Data fashion you end up with a richer Web of Linked Data.
Considering comments like yours, I really fear for the community to loose its openness and acceptance of differing opinions.
What is the differing opinion?
I had already given up really following the discussions here for exactly that reason (and I am not the only one), but this message appeared on my phone before the mail client could sort it away and simply made me upset.
Sorry for upsetting you, and I hope you become less upset when you understand my point. A simple route to that destination starts by you responding to my questions.
I strongly believe you've misunderstood my response, as measured as it was, initially. Thus, let's reconcile all of this, and I am quite confident that my fundamental point will be resurrected and then clearly understood.
Greetings, Sebastian
-- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Founder & CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
