A lot of activities around Linking Open Data (“LOD”) and the associated data sets which are nicely visualised as a “cloud” are going on for quite a while now. It is exciting to see how the rather academic “Semantic Web” and all the work which is associated with this disruptive technology can be transformed now into real business use cases.

What I have observed in the last few months, especially in business communities, is the following:

• “Linked Data” sounds interesting for the business people because the phrase creates a lot of associations in a second or two; also the database crowd seems to be attracted by this web-based approach of data integration
• “Web of Data” is somehow misleading because many people think that this will be a new web which replaces something else. Same story with the “Semantic Web”
• “Linking Open Data” sounds dangerous and not trustworthy to many companies

For insiders it is clear, that the “openness” of data, especially in commercial settings, can be controlled and has to be controlled in many cases i.e. by defining the right licensing models. But here we are still at the beginning as a workshop at ISWC 2009 has illustrated.

Anyway, looking at the characteristics of Linked Data Flows, they can be one-way or mutual. In some cases data from companies will be put into the cloud, and can be opened up for many purposes, in other use cases it will stay inside the boundaries. In other scenarios only (open) data from the web will be consumed and linked with corporate data, but no data will be exposed to the world (except the fact, that data was consumed by an entity).

And of course: On many other occasions datasets and repositories will be opened up partly depending on the CCs (or similar, not yet defined attributes) and the underlying privacy regulations one wants to use.

This makes clear that LOD / Linking Open Data is just one detail of a bigger picture. Since companies (and governments) play a crucial role to develop the whole infrastructure, we need to draw a new picture that illustrates the various Linked Data Flows in a better way:

Concluding from this the best thing would be to talk about Linked Data in general and just refer to Linking Open Data in the right context. Despite better knowledge for business people the term  “open” is still associated with “free” and “dubious provenance”. And given the fact that hardly anybody has given hard evidence on the ROI of open business models the “open argument” does count little in a time of decreasing economic prosperity.

So what would be critical to get the Linked Data thing running is to provide the corresponding business and licensing models for your Linked Data strategy. But this includes having a good understanding of the assets you want to capitalize. Given the fact that metada assets are still a novel and vastly unexplored business field which so far lack a regulated supply and demand structure there are still lots of structural obstacles that hinder the uptake of Linked Data. Providing more of the same in a laissez faire mode – like TimBL critisized at this year’s Web 2.0 Summit – might be inspiring for the in-crowd, but it might not be sufficient to build a linked data business.

Let´s catch a few glimpses. Explore the latest Web 2.0 developments at Web 2.0 Expo in San Francisco end of April. Web 2.0 has come to a close and now the work begins.

Change of scenery. Vienna has been a town of congresses ever since. A few days ago journalists and media experts all over Europe discussed the Online-versus-Print-topic at a European Newspaper Congress in the Wiener Rathaus (Photo: pte). Naturally, there are numerous interpretations and perspectives – dependent on the individual position, viewpoint and employment – but also on objectives: Who is the target group? Amazingly enough, I can notice all over the place – and across all businesses – that this primary topic within marketing is often being neglected. Lots of managers lose sight of this in their daily business.
In media terms: Who is going to read, watch or listen to my content? That´s THE question for media people. And being a journalist myself, I have been keeping an eye on this matter for many years. But whether something is sexy or not – who is going to judge? Even media experts might differ in this question.

I remember the print-versus-online-matter having been discussed enthusiastically at all kinds of media conferences since the early 90s. What has changed? Large media-companies are discovering Web 2.0 and spend five billions of dollars for social networking.

Während nordamerikanische Unternehmen rund 60 Prozent der Investitionen in Web-2.0-Projekte tätigen werden, hinken europäische Konzerne weiterhin hinterher. Als entwicklungsförderlich gelten verschiedene Bestrebungen der Konzerne, wie die User jederzeit und effizient mit wichtigen Daten zu versorgen sowie die einfache Vernetzung von Kollegen untereinander und mit Geschäftspartnern.

Translation in short: European companies: Remain competitive! Have a look at www.semantic-web.at once in a while and keep informed about the future of data.

Is this journalism? Is this media? Is this blogging? Or simply manipulation? (Or is it just the right way to survive?) Well – that´s another kind of story. Anyway – isn´t there a new phenomenon called „user generated content“? I´m sure, my colleague Jana Herwig can tell you lots of stories about this… Stay tuned.

Marion

By the way – there is an interesting media-conference in Graz in September