Semantic Web Company

Sometimes I hate marketing. Most often you can feel it in your heart whether issues are authentic or not. Whatever medium you are consuming these days – the web, the newspapers or your mailbox – anyone seems to discover a new killer-application called ethics. This seems to be everyone´s cure – be it a seminar, a conference or a book: Ethics is hype.

That´s more than annoying for me who´s been trying for years to establish ethical aspects in my work as a journalist, as a pr-person (believe it or not!) – as a human-being. Being sensitive for the special challenges connected with discussing ethical issues in a diverse global economy I´ve always been trying to publish and talk about the philosophical approach to these matters.

Therefore I ´m happy to come across Tim Berners Lee´s request at the current International World Wide Web Conference in Madrid: Clean the web! He – which is not at all surprising – is claiming a clean web. The user has to know which data he can trust and may pass on. Also privacy must be protected he postulates one more time. All these arguments deal authentically with ethics. But not only. They concern the future. The future of us all.

In a recent interview Prof. Chris Bizer from FU Berlin gave some insights into the commercial opportunities of linked data. In the short run he predicts three application areas:

I think we will see a growing number of applications that use data from the public Web as background knowledge to offer better search capabilities and to augment local content with additional content from the Web of Data.
[...]
Beside of the classic search engines, there might also be market opportunities for new search engines that specialize on Linked Data. [...] This will allow them to sell access to cleaned views on the Data Web and to become central components within Linked Data applications.
[...]
Within the corporate market, there is interest in using Linked Data as a lightweight, pay-as-you-go data integration technology.

Additionally Chris comments on the latest developments in the area of triple stores and D2RQ, and the necessity for more privacy awareness and information accountability in an increasingly interlinked world.

Read the full interview on our homepage.

In recent days – here at Semantic Web Company – we have had a lot of discussions on how the future of the Semantic Web (name it Web3.0 if you like) will develop. Several stakeholders on the future of the Semantic Web see already, that also a potential danger will come along with the technical realisation of the web3.0: This is the present possibility to create applications and mashups with semantic technologies that are a real drain on privacy and information ethics. Without an underpinning discussion about the ethical framework within technolgies like linked data, text-mining, biometric-systems and geo-systems in combination with the web of data, the whole domain is in danger to be doomed like genetic engineering some years ago.

It’s crucial for the public opinion on the Semantic Web, to adress the immanent risks regarding privacy and ethics. In this context I’ll see also Tim Berners-Lee’s statement yesterday: “W3C wants to help make sure data use is appropriate,” he said. Berners-Lee, who is director of W3C, said in an interview on Wednesday that the teams working on the Semantic Web project are making sure that privacy principles are included in its architecture: “The Semantic Web project is developing systems which will answer where data came from and where it’s going to — the system will be architectured for a set of appropriate uses.”

Maybe it’s an important step in keeping the further development of Semantic Web trusty in the eyes of public opinion, that the W3C has privacy and information ethics on their agenda and persons like Berners-Lee stand with their reputation for it. But it is also crucial to build this awareness on the corporate side. Only if everyone within the domain follows a common ethic understanding we have a public opinion, which is on the future potential of the Semantic Web, and not in fear of the same.

Today we had an interview date with Markus Mooslechner from ORF (Austrian Broadcasting). The TV-Show “Newton” will discuss next Saturday how social media affects our lives, especially how one can make sure that private data won´t be used improperly, e.g. by certain internet providers.

My colleague Tassilo Pellegrini gave some nice examples how some providers like Facebook explicitly state in their privacy policy that they are allowed to hand over all personal data to any other third party (“…our service providers may have access to your personal information for use for a limited time in connection with these business activities”).

It´s a shame that some fundamental rights regarding privacy have dissipated in just a few years.

Also today, I asked Chris Bizer, doubtlessly one of the key-players in the semantic web community, some questions for an interview. Among other things I was also wondering if he thinks that the Semantic Web could solve some privacy issues or if Linked Data will rather become a synonym for “transparent user” (Gläserner Mensch).

Prof. Rafael Capurro, one of the world’s most renowned experts of Information Ethics, together with his colleagues Max Senges (Ex-Google Researcher) and Michael Nagenborg (Robotics & Privacy Expert) has set up a collaborative project to “explore and discuss the values of netizens”. Please participate by contributing to their survey! (See below, I simply copied the email text.)

Dear all

It is my pleasure to introduce you to Rafael Capurro and Michael Nagenborg both experts in Informationethics. Following a podcast interview i held with Rafael (available @ archive.org ), we pursued his suggestion to initiate a dialogue about what underlying values users care about in their online lifes?

We have developed a short questionnaire which we invite you to fill out and spread amongst your network @ http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/63

This survey is meant as first step to gather some empirical data so we can (a) deliberate and discuss these themes further in the forum (where we have setup a dedicated discussion thread @ http://internetrightsandprinciples.org/node/64 and (b) strategize & formulate our project (and funding) proposals based on empirical evidence.

Again, please invite your friends and peers to contribute to this exploration of what user really care about when online.

Looking forward to discuss with you
Rafael, Michael and Max

In a recent study the authors Aleecia McDonald and Lorrie Faith Cranor of Carnegie Mellon University found out that the time allocated for reading online privacy policies on the websites you regularly visit would produce a total loss in productivity and time equalling $365 billion a year.

These findings are based on empirical data estimating that an average internet user invests approximatly USD 3000.- per year getting to grips with the various privacy policies of their service providers.

But – bluntly speaking – as “noone” reads privacy statements anyway, this is not a real economic loss. So you might say it is an academic problem. But still it raises the interesting question what it would cost if you as an internet end-user wanted to make use of your civil rights and gain some souvereignty towards your service providers.

So here the question arises how semantic web technologies, especially the Policy Aware Web, can be a viable solution to this economic problem. But the answer to the question is a political one, which means it will be up to the politicians to recognise this problem and support a (technological?) solution … which from my point means that there are interesting times ahead for a Policy Aware Web.

Read a more detailed coverage of the study at out-law.com.

Author: Tassilo Pellegrini

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.

A few days ago I wrote about the the EU Commission’s definition of Web 3.0. Now they started a consultation on that topic.

To be precise it is about “early challenges regarding the Internet of Things”.

And it will focus on

architectures, control of critical infrastructures, emerging applications, security, privacy and data protection, spectrum management, regulations and standards, broader socio-economic aspects.

Contributions can be sent to infso-iot-europe@ec.europa.eu by 28th November 2008.

Take your chance! Visit their consultation site.

Author: Tassilo Pellegrini

In a recent interview just published on our web site, Ken North (from the LinkedData Planet conference faculty) suggested that EU privacy laws can be a guiding light in the process of modelling privacy regulations for the web of data:

Many members of the emergent Linked Data and Open Data developer communities are Europeans who are familiar with EU privacy laws. We need them to serve as thought leaders on ethical issues related to publishing open data, although we’ll still need global awareness of privacy issues. We also need an international agreement that provides a process for resolving disputes about the accuracy or removal of private and confidential data.

I’m currently having a mild case of tunnel vision regarding privacy issues, partly also because I attended the PRISE conference here in Vienna last week. It was the concluding conference for the PRISE project, the aim of which was to provide “criteria and guidelines for privacy enhancing security research and for the application of the developed security solutions. As a supporting activity under the PASR programme the project will assist the European Union in shaping forthcoming security research programmes in accordance with its fundamental values.” PRISE developed a framework to ensure that privacy policies are already considered in the design of research projects, and not simply taken care of as an ‘add-on’ shortly before the release of a prototype or publictaion of a research project. In other words: Research on privacy friendly research – I approve!

So if there’s anybody in the Linked Data and Open Data community eager on getting in touch with people familiar with the technological side of EU privacy laws: PRISE was coordinated by the Austrian Academy of Sciences, more specifically by Johann Cas at the Institute for Technology Assessment. I am also happy to put you in touch if need be! Also, don’t forget to read the full interview with Ken North.

From the very beginning I was wondering, what Reuters is going to do with all that data generated by OpenCalais. So I took a moment and browsed through the Privacy Statement (formerly their Terms Of Use), stepping over an enlightning paragraph:

We may build a search capability in the future. This capability would allow users to search the metadata repository and receive back a list of entries that match that search criteria. Unless you have authorized it via an API parameter, this list would not include the original metadata contained in the document but would expose the URL and description of the original document if you have provided it to us. If you do not want your content included in the search functionality you should indicate so in the appropriate area of the API. If you want to maximize the exposure of your content on the web you should not opt out of inclusion in the search functionality.

Hypothetical in wording this paragraph states it very clear: engagement in the search market is definitely an option. But they even go one step further.

We may build a syndication capability in the future. This capability would allow us to generate feeds of content that match certain selection criteria based on the metadata. As with search, unless you have authorized it via an API parameter, these feeds will not expose the original metadata contained in the document but would expose the URL and description of the original document if you have provided it to us. If you do not want your content included in the syndication functionality you should indicate so in the appropriate area of the API. If you want to maximize the exposure of your content on the web you should not opt out of inclusion in the syndication functionality.

This sounds to me like content reselling business. In this regard it might be interesting to take a look at the latest developments from IPTC: a policy standard called ACAP, which stands for Automated Content Access Protocol. Its designed to express access policies for robots on content items. Coupling ACAP with (hypothetical) search capabilities of OpenCalais could result in a major commercial distribution engine especially for traditional media content owners. Especially with the following marketing capabilities in mind:

We may build other products in the future based on statistical or other analysis of the metadata, such as trend analysis, emerging topics or others. In no case will these products expose the original document’s metadata.

Finally a business model for the Semantic Web? Whatever … smart guys, great service!