Search
Subscribe

Bookmark and Share

About this Blog

As enterprise supply chains and consumer demand chains have beome globalized, they continue to inefficiently share information “one-up/one-down”. Profound "bullwhip effects" in the chains cause managers to scramble with inventory shortages and consumers attempting to understand product recalls, especially food safety recalls. Add to this the increasing usage of personal mobile devices by managers and consumers seeking real-time information about products, materials and ingredient sources. The popularity of mobile devices with consumers is inexorably tugging at enterprise IT departments to shifting to apps and services. But both consumer and enterprise data is a proprietary asset that must be selectively shared to be efficiently shared.

About Steve Holcombe

Unless otherwise noted, all content on this company blog site is authored by Steve Holcombe as President & CEO of Pardalis, Inc. More profile information: View Steve Holcombe's profile on LinkedIn

Follow @WholeChainCom™ at each of its online locations:

Entries in Semantic Trust (22)

Friday
Mar282008

Granularity & Semantic Trust

I have received, and continue to receive, some quizzical looks and comments when I speak about Common Point Authoring in terms of granularity or granular information ownership.

Here's a wonderful parable about granularity taken from an excerpt of Automated Trust Mechanisms and the One World Market by Greg FitzPatrick. This paper was submitted to XML Europe 2001.

"Granularity .... means the breaking up [of] ideas, processes, products and services into fragments. The makeup of a set of fragments is dynamic and aspectual to ever-changing utility and circumstance. Each set represents new and unique combinations. The backside of granularity is complexity and the costs involved in extending distributed trust. Unlike Humpty-Dumpty, a granular set must be able to function as effectively as any pre-granular whole.

Imagine a group of children in a playroom. Each child has come to the room with a thousand pieces of their privately owned and highly valued collections of Lego. A teacher says to the children. "Put all your Lego pieces in the middle of the floor and build a great city." The children balk, since once the Lego is removed from their immediate possession, they can no longer identify it as their own. The teacher tells them," I will keep track of each piece and remember whose is whose. If the children trust the teacher's ability to do this they will begin to build.

To match their trust the teacher would need almost supernatural powers since Lego is known for the precision modularity of its product, mostly indistinguishable plastic blocks. The value of playing together and having so much Lego to build with is the value of the network, but the effort to maintain trust regarding individual ownership is the transaction cost.

End-to-end markets are capable of creating a considerable amount of complexity. Through Semantic trust they will admit a swarm of participants (fragments) into one and the same transaction. [....] The complexity is further exacerbated by the existence of exploratory negotiation. Agents trying to evaluate their participation in a deal would need the same transaction mechanisms as those of a firm deal. The trust mechanisms must be in place regardless."

The image of a teacher assuring these kids that they will get back 'their' exact Lego pieces is powerful.

Tim Berners-Lee in addressing XML 2000 is said to have described the Semantic test for such trust as being that "... which is passed if, when you give data to a machine, it will do the right thing with it".

Wednesday
Mar192008

The Funding of the Emerging Semantic Web

The dam is finally beginning to break on the funding for the emerging Semantic Web. The conventional wisdom in Silicon Valley is that a more powerful, integrated Web is about to emerge, where data about information is much more structured than it is today. The $42.4M invested in Metaweb Technologies in January, 2008 was led in by Silicon Valley’s Benchmark Capital and the venerable, Wall Street investment banking firm of Goldman Sachs.

Metaweb Technologies characterizes its ‘Knowledge web’ as a massive, collaboratively-edited database (like Wikipedia) of cross-linked data. In the future, its founder, Danny Hillis, hopes to generate business revenue by providing means for the ownership of information on the Internet. However, Metaweb holds a thin intellectual property portfolio. Metaweb’s founder began globally filing patents in 2001. Before $15M was raised in March, 2006, he did not keep up the patent application fees. Only one of those patent applications (US Patent Application 20050086188) for “Knowledge web” remains. The patent fees have been paid and it will issue this spring so congratulations to Mr. Hillis are certainly in order. It’s always a happy day when a patent issues. But the Knowledge Web patent will only be enforceable within U.S. borders. And, even then, do the claims cover the authoring of structured data without the necessity of Wikepedia-like collaboration? I ask this question because a critical characteristic of ownership must certainly revolve the choice of non-collaboration.

The investment is considerable even though Metaweb is pre-revenue. But the bottom line is that it is now possible to assign a very real return on investment to Semantic Web technologies.

Page 1 ... 1 2 3 4 5