Linked Data Planet

So I attended the Linked Data Planet conference in NYC last week.  Apart from the horrors of discovering that basic breakfast at the hotel can cost $35, it was quite an interesting experience.  Tim Berners-Lee spoke on day 1.  He has a fairly strict definition of what linked data means and it is at an instance level.  But I think his vision still lacks compelling use cases.  The philosophy seems to be, "build it and uses will emerge." 

Next day, I gave a keynote.  The points I made were roughly as follows

1. While linking is important (1+1=11 in base 10!), it is not always the case that instance level linking is the only way to go.  Enterprises frequently link data at schema level, and people are also sometimes linking at some social level which might not get captured in the schema or instance level linking.
2. There needs to be a virtuous cycle of "linked data -> value creation -> more linked data -> more value creation." Build it and they will come is not necessarily the best philosophy.
3. For instance based linking, one needs tools to automatically structure all the existing information, and correctly link it together.  If one is to depend on only new information being properly linked, then the whole movement will suffer.  I gave example of two IBM technologies -- Avatar and Entity Analytics -- that can help in this area.  Of course, being a database person, I had to address the issue of persistence of linked (RDF) data.  While it is clear that databases were not naturally designed to be triple stores, the history of databases is littered with approaches that tried something different and went to /dev/null.
4. I gave two expamples -- Many eyes and the mashup work that we and a FOAF (Joni Graves) are doing -- to illustrate that people are critical linkers, and often link at a schema level.
5. Finally, in enterprises, I gave several examples of schema based linking -- master data, information integration etc., but which are often complemented by people and instance based linking.
6. And even if all data gets linked, one has to worry about the business issues like quality of information, copyright etc.
7. The conclusion was -- important interplay between people, schema and instances, none more dominant than the other; and that business and value creation has to go with the technology.

Many thanks to all the people whose works I referenced, and especially Shiv Vaithyanathan & co of the Avatar group to opening up my eyes to the instance vs. schema differences, and to Bob Schloss for providing me with a pulse of the audience so that I did not completely blow it.

While my enteprise-y focus probably turned off some people who believe in everything open, I did find many kindred spirits.  And I enjoyed interactions with many people I met.  Kingsley Idehen was so fascinating to talk to, I am going to folow up with him as I think through everything I will do to further our joint linked data vision.

All in all, I learnt a lot and hopefully I helped the people in the audience also understand a slightly different perspective.  Thanks to Ken North for arranging my talk there.

[Edit of 6/23/08].  Here are my slides...

Comments

[Kingsley Idehen]

Anant,

I guess you didn't know that I tracked your blog :-) Just like that, you post, and my notification system pings me etc..

It was a pleasure meeting with you in person. I really enjoyed your presentation.

Next stop, the unveiling of UMBEL with darkens the "Scheme" aspect of Linked Data so that the Instance Data centricity in our anecdotal material softens.

Once we have Instance Data and Schema level integration sorted, we can produce Linked Data solutions that aid "People" so that they produce clean data without changing their naturally sloppy habits :-)

Kingsley

[Carl]

Anant, here's a NYC tip for you: always have breakfast at a deli. Doesn't matter which hotel you're staying at, go outside and walk a block or two to find a deli.

This will also expose you to what seem to be the two default NY deli newspapers, the Post or the Daily News. Point being: bring your own newspaper.

[Kiran]

Anant,
Can you share your presentation, if you used one, via your blog, or on slideshare.
Thanks,
Kiran

[Kingsley Idehen]

Anant,

My presentation is exposed via:

1. - http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen - My Blog
2. http://myopenlink.net/dataspace/person/kidehen - One of my FOAF profile pages (follow the "Explore Data Tab")

Anyway, here is a direct link (to save time):
http://virtuoso.openlinksw.com/presentations/Creating_Deploying_Exploiting_Linked_Data2/Creating_Deploying_Exploiting_Linked_Data2.html

Kingsley

[Anant Jhingran]

Kiran et al, see the edit above, the slides are now posted.

[Joe I.]

Mr. Jhingran,

After enduring your talk in silent frustration, I applauded loudly when one of the audience members told you that "you don't get it". From your blog, it appears you still don't. Even worse, it appears that not only don't you get what linked data is, you don't get that the audience didn't like your talk.

TimBL didn't say build it and uses will emerge - he said "we built it and uses HAVE emerged". Past tense. Will IBM continue to ignore RDF & linked data in the face of its success?

-Joe I.

[Anant Jhingran]

Joe, appreciate your sentiment. Well, I did conclude in my blog by saying I learnt a lot and it did open my eyes to alternatives. I was there to understand the audience perspective and to give my perspective. If I know how to contact you I can have a further dialog.

[Chris Welty]

Joe,

IBM does not ignore RDF and linked data. We have been one of the most active participants in setting the open standards upon which most linked data efforts are based, including RDF, SKOS, OWL, SPARQL, and RIF. Check out our record. I think its pretty good.

-Chris

[Joe I.]

Fair enough. Like other audience people that day I am maybe too sensitive to the this misconception that this (linked data, semantic web) is all just the same old thing with a different name.

But I will give IBM its due. Lots of activity. But it seems disconnected from this talk.

-Joe

My email is captsemantic@yahoo.com.

[Anonymous]

I'm pretty sure that 1 + 1 = 2 in base 10. Perhaps you meant base 1?

[Anant Jhingran]

sorry anonymmous. in the talk i had said that typically people say 1 + 1 = 3 = 11 base 2 and i said 1 + 1 is really 11 in base 10...