Semantic Web Company

Marco Neumann is an Information Scientist and CEO of KONA a consulting and technology service company based in New York City. The Semantic Web activist is an invited expert to the W3C HTML 5 working group. He recently started a discussion on the challenges and difficulties in bringing the Semantic Web into business. SWC asked him for some additional comments.

Marco, you recently initiated a discussion in a Google Group on the difficulty to change Semantic Web standards. What was the background of the discussion? Where do you perceive a need for action?

It’s not so much about changing this existing standards but the challenge to bring them into the world of practitioners and standards developers. The language used in W3C recommendations quite frequently requires advanced topic knowledge and familiarity with the jargon of the discussion about the respective technologies. I recently discussed this with a senior standards maven at the W3C and got the answer that the recommendations can’t be changed retrospectively and that they are intended to be used primarily by vendors for implementation purposes.

Well this might be the case but I also got the impression that Tim Berners-Lee objective for the W3C is primarily to meet the needs of a larger community. And the W3C took this into account for most of the Semantic Web recommendations in the past. Something I still find amazing is the fact that the work process at the W3C is partially and the recommendations are entirely publicly accessible. Though we definitely still need more and better tools to work with semantic web data, higher quality documentation and last but not least more user adoption on the web.

Critics of the Semantic Web often refer to the slow uptake of Semantic Web standards by industry. Is standards adoption actually a valid and sufficient metric to evaluate the maturity of a standard? What would be needed to accelerate the uptake?

I think we might see a similar scenario to the uptake of HTML in the early 90s, a relatively small number of technology mavens will pave the way towards making the Semantic Web more attractive as a technology solution for a wide range of applications and will successfully publish open data before we see business application developers make use of Semantic Web standards.

The availability of trustable and quality approved RDF data is crucial for the success of the Semantic Web. Given the fact that the aggregation business on the WWW is highly concentrated the corresponding formula is simple: If Google just consumes but does not give back RDF the Semantic Web won’t scale. Do you agree?

Yes and no. Yes we need better and more semantic data on the Web, but we will also need better ways to deal with trust in a lightweight and web friendly fashion. I currently see a number of semi automated approaches emerging  that could scale on the web. An example are distributed user based recommendation systems to validate authenticity, open Wikipedia style community evaluation and content curation a la freebase. Increased public accountability for data producers might be an interesting venue as well. In regards to Google I’d say web search engines will go where the web goes. A problem I might see arising is that web search engines will initially develop their own standards to deal with the emerging Semantic Web and confuse users on the web or might pursue a time consuming power play with the W3C. I see a little bit of that in the current discussion in the HTML 5 working group.

As we know from social sciences technological standards are necessary but always incomplete and unsatisfactory. From a standards design and outreach perspective: What would it need to make the Semantic Web flourish?

I’m not sure if we really know all that much about the laws of innovation and the evolution of technology standards at this point. If we draw from the short experience with the World Wide Web I would come to the conclusion that innovation takes place in small to medium size teams that pursue an independent vision of how services should be delivered and how the technology should be designed. In addition Tim Berners-Lee’s encourages the production of lots and lots of data to bootstrap the Semantic Web and create a pull for services in the industry. And indeed we really see some traction for example with the Linked Open Data and Open Government initiatives. It’s definitely an exciting time to be on the Semantic Web!

About Marco Neumann

Marco Neumann is an Information Scientist and CEO of KONA a consulting and technology service company based in New York City. KONA provides semantic technologies to businesses solutions and adds value to products and services in a highly networked economy. In addition Marco currently acts as an Invited Expert to the W3C on the HTML 5 working group and is the director of the global semantic social network lotico.com.

Jordan S. Hatcher is, among other things, a lawyer, academic, and entrepreneur working on Intellectual Property and Internet law issues in the UK and worldwide. He is heavily involved in the Open Data Commons initiative. Last month he gave me an interview on IPR issues associated with data licensing. His brief answer to the question why data needs a seperate licensing framework:

The answer to me is that database and data are different.  They’re different legally and different practically in what consumers and producers of open data want to do with it.  They’re also different in what the future looks like in terms of things like linked data.

Read the details in the full interview.

From November 11 – 13, 2009 this will be one of the big issues at the 5th International Conference on Topic Maps taking place in Leipzig/Germany. When asked about the relationship between TM and SemWeb conference organizer Lutz Maicher says:

With the vision of the web of data Topic Maps and the Semantic Web move closer over time. Anywhere URIs represent subjects, structured statements are gathered around them. In this context I see subj3ct.com as an interesting ventures. This recently launched service provides URIs for 15 million subjects to be used in structured data. Naturally, linked data hubs like dbpedia or geonames.org are part of it. The crowd is invited to contribute to this collection, also the Topic Maps Lab provides several feeds to register new URIs. Subj3ct.com turns out to be an infrastructure technology for Web 3.0 applications, regardless whether they are based on Topic Maps or other Semantic Web technologies.

Through this convergence the uniqueness of each technology sharpens. Reasoning is the strong point of the Semantic Web. But the strength of Topic Maps are semantic portals and the global federation of facts around subjects. Bringing together all and even contradictory information about each subject – and not building reasoning-ready consistent models of the world – is built into the genes of Topic Maps.

Read the full interview here.

Recently we held a kick off meeting at FTW Vienna for our Smart Metering project called SeSaMe. This acronym stands for SEmantic SmArt Metering and adresses the use of computational semantics to improve energy consumption in terms of efficiency and personal awareness. (It has nothing to do with the well known triple store from Aduna, but maybe we will use it.)

The high-level societal goal of the project SeSaMe is to facilitate home owners or building managers in saving energy within their environments and in optimizing their energy costs, while actively controlling and maintaining their preferred quality of living. Therefore an international consortium of five partners was formed bringing together various competencies and fields of expertise.

We have set up a project blog, where you will find more information on the topic soon.

Found this piece on FCW.com. I love it!

Posted by John Klossner on Aug 03, 2009

For those of you, like me, who need a way to keep these things straight, I offer the following handy, wallet-sized program.

WEB 1.0 (browsers) – Users find data
WEB 2.0 (social networks) – Users find each other
WEB 3.0 (semantic Web) – Data find each other

Of course, a lifetime of science-fiction reading and viewing leads me to fear we can look forward to the following developments:

WEB 4.0 – Data create their own Facebook page, restrict friends.
WEB 5.0 – Data decide they can work without humans, create their own language.
WEB 6.0 –Human users realize that they no longer can find data unless invited by data.
WEB 7.0 – Data get cheaper cell phone rates.
WEB 8.0 – Data horde all the good YouTube videos, leaving human users with access to bad ’80’s music videos only.
WEB 9.0 – Data create and maintain own blogs, are more popular than human blogs.
WEB 10.0 – All episodes of Battlestar Gallactica will now be shown from the Cylons’ point of view.

This year’s keynotes at the I-SEMANTICS / I-KNOW conference taking place from September 2 – 4, 2009 in Graz / Austria have been fixed.

The scientific keynotes will be provided by Paolo Traverso, Director of the Center for Information Technology – IRST, Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Italy, and Professor Eric Tsui, Associate Director of the Knowledge Management Research Centre, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, China.

The industry keynote will be held by Peter Kropsch, CEO of the Austrian Press Agency.

Further details will follow.

As journalist and communications-professional I came acoss an article that I – although in German – have to recommend from the depth of my heart to everybody who is somehow concerned with communication. It´s an article on propaganda in the prestigious brandeins-magazine. Here´s a german commentary on it.

Communications and public relations are at least as complex as the Semantic Web is and it´s not accidental that both of them deal with language. Ludwig Wittgenstein had claimed comprehension by talking about truth tables and anybody who deals with communication should act more explicit in terms of getting more understanding.

I’m not going to explicitly comment on the panel discussion at ISWC08, entitled An OWL 2 Far? Let’s simply say it was controversial. I don’t mind controversial panels. In fact, I think that few things are more boring than a panel where all panelists more or less agree. But at the same time, at the ISWC08 panel, I think, an important message got lost, namely that we really need reasoning for the Semantic Web, and that we need diversity in reasoning. (Admittedly, some people said so, but I think the message didn’t really get through.)

So, instead, let me give you some web search problems. They all came up in my real life, so they are not artificially created. It seems to me that the Semantic Web should make answering them easier, but with the existing web resources, they are really difficult.

• Find all papers having received best paper awards at ISWC conferences. I did that today, and it took me more than 30 minutes. And I’m not sure if I got all of them – indeed I would have missed one of them if I hadn’t known beforehand about that specific paper having received the award. Isn’t this a typical Semantic Web problem? (The results of my search are further below.)
• There’s an owl-like bird in southern German woods, and in colloquial german it’s called Käuzchen. Try to find out the english name for this bird. I actually failed, though I think I got close to the answer when I merged web search with an external knowledge base (in form of a biologist I happen to know). And actually, simply going to Wikipedia and clicking on the English link is not enough, since I’m not looking for the Strix genus of owls, but rather for a particular bird …
• Who is this researcher with the russian looking name who worked on resolution-based methods for the description logic EL? This also looks like a typical Semantic Search problem, which shouldn’t be too difficult if you have the corresponding knowledge (and background knowledge) available. I admit I failed on this one using traditional methods (unless you consider it a traditional method to ask Franz Baader by email about it.)
• Are lobsters spiders? I.e. are lobsters classified as spiders by biologists? This one is actually tougher than you would think using traditional methods. Should be easy using Semantic Web knowledge bases and some simple reasoning, shouldn’t it?

For all these tasks (and many others), it seems to be apparent that Semantic Web Reasoning – and the availability of corresponding knowledge bases – would make the finding of answers much easier. The current reality of the Semantic Web is still quite a bit away from this. But we’re working on it.

Finally, as promised, the results of my inquiry about the ISWC best paper awards:

• 2004: Y. Guo, Z. Pan, and J. Heflin, An Evaluation of Knowledge Base Systems for Large OWL Datasets.  This one compares different semantic web reasoners.
• 2005: The award was split that year. One half was awarded to P. Mika, Ontologies Are Us: A Unified Model of Social Networks and Semantics. The other half was awarded to B. Motik, On the Properties of Metamodeling in OWL. Edit: Apologies to Peter Mika. I accidently forgot his paper and mentioned instead a paper which won the best paper award at the International Symposium on Wearable Computers 2005, which is also abbreviated ISWC. It’s now been corrected. We definitely need Semantic Search!
• 2006: H. Chen, Y. Wang, H. Wang, Y. Mao, J. Tang, C. Zhou, A. Yin, Z. Wu, Towards a Semantic Web of Relational Databases: a Practical Semantic Toolkit and an In-Use Case from Traditional Chinese Medicine.
• 2007: D. Zeginis, Y. Tzitzikas and V. Christophides, On the Foundations of Computing Deltas Between RDF Models. This one is about a diff for RDF, and it involves RDF inferencing.
• 2008: M. Horridge, B. Parsia and U. Sattler, Laconic and Precise Justifications in OWL.

So why did I dig these awards out? Because I noticed that among these 6 papers there are 3 which are explicitly concerned with OWL. And the 2007 paper involves RDF inferencing. Talk about the importance of reasoning for the Semantic Web …

Author: Pascal Hitzler, AIFB, University of Karlsruhe (TH), Germany

For the past several months the EU Commission and the EU Parliament were struggling over the so called “Telecom Package“, a legislative initiative promoted by the Commission under heavy advocacy of France. In a nutshell the Telecom Package contains a very problematic passage, which is meant to strengthen the rights of ISPs in being able to cut off the internet access of individual users, if any violations of existing or future copyright law were detected. In other words: ISPs would be able to control who gets access to the internet, violating the universal service doctrine, which is a basic cornerstone of democracy.

In their first reading on September 24, 2008 the European Prarliament voted against the the “Telecom Package” advocating the so called “Bono Amendment” – which refers to the French Socialist MEP Guy Bono – which basically states that that courts need to be involved in any disconnection procedure. In the original passage, quoted in a recent EU Observer article, it says:

No restriction may be imposed on the rights and freedoms of end users … without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities.”

This decision has some relevant implications for any future developments of the internet. While the telcos and the media companies are struggling hard to adapt to the social logic the internet, searching for new business models and lobbying for regulation in their favour, it is obvious that the existing abundance and innovativeness of the internet is hardly compatible with their notion of making money on the web – basically by restricting access and promoting artificial scarcity.

It also is relevant to developments like Linking Open Data, as in an increasingly interconnected and mashupped world it is getting harder and harder to comply with strict and rigid copy- & usage rights policies – even if they are published under any sort of commons license. In this respect it is important to mention that research on judicial problems arising from the automated processing of content released under differing commons licenses is still missing (as far as I know – does anybody have a hint for me?). But with the current decision of the European Parliament we can observe a very promising shift in the notion that the internet is made up of much more than its commercial exploitability. And that any attempt to stiffle this notion by imposing unbalanced regulatory restrictions on the rights of the users is a major threat not just to the internet as it exists but to democracy itself.

In this respect enjoy a great talk of Lawrence Lessig on this topic.

Just recently, when Michael Hausenblas tagged it on del.icio.us, I stumbled upon Wordle and I continue to be fascinated by the results it can produce for the RSS feed of our blog:

This confirms that:

1. Tagclouds are still evolving.
2. It’s all about the web, data, semantics AND people!
3. Tagclouds can be VERY pretty (on T-Shirts etc.).

Great work, Mr. Feinberg!