 |
Following our launch party for Semantic Web Austin, I’ve been wanting to do a follow up interview with the group’s founder, Juan Sequeda. This interview was conducted by GeekAustin’s resident ontologist, Jana Thompson. - Linear |
Jana Thompson: What are the benefits you see to the business community in adopting semantic technology?
Juan Sequeda: Semantic technologies will allow data to be related. It is about serendipity and data reusability. So if the business community is interested in discovering relationships of their data and being able to reuse it, they should consider starting looking into semantic technologies. One of the main examples is data integration. The business community is interested in seeing how this new technology can finally (hopefully) solve the data integration problem. In my opinion, semantic technologies are focused on 1) creating a web of data (aka. The Semantic Web) and 2) data integration in different domains (business, life science, geospatial, pharmaceutical)
Jana: Do you think these benefits are great enough for businesses to adopt the changes?
Juan: The web is always evolving, and semantic technologies are going to be part of the next step of the Web. Therefore, if companies want to be up-to-date with this evolution, they need to get on that boat. In a way, if companies do not start to look into semantic technologies, they will be in a disadvantage, and by the time they do start working on it, it may be too late. In addition, if they are still not satisfied in their data integration solutions, semantic technologies could be something attractive that business should start looking into.
Jana: How large do you think this impact will actually be?
Juan: Right now, I don’t know. We have to wait maybe a year till the research community makes stuff that is more accessible to normal users. Hopefully in the next year we will know.
Jana: I’m imagining a scenario like the dot-com era, when everyone was convinced that everyone would be shopping online, and so there were a plethora of start-up dot coms, offering everything for sale online, that of course eventually failed for the most part.
Juan: Once several apps have been developed, this era is going to come. The research that needs to be done is how to make this easy for the user. For example, the semantic web community is just starting to think about this. Check this: http://km.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/ws/insemtive2008/. It’s the first workshop on Incentives for the Semantic Web. So the community has realized that it does need to do something to incentivsie the world. Let’s see what happens in October at the International Semantic Web Conference.
Jana: I’ve heard, from contacts in the Bay Area, that they are skeptical of how large this impact of semantic technology will actually be on the web itself, but that the best uses of the technology are for fields such as medical information, or as you mentioned, geo-spatial data.
Juan: The Semantic web and semantic technologies is in a research era. Medicine fields and others have helped in this research process, therefore they are receiving the best and first benefits now. But most of the research is done in Europe and the Europeans do not have a commercial mind-like. Companies are skeptical of the impact, because they are not knowledgeable about it, and it is still not easy because it is still in a research phase. Hence, no semantic web killer app exist yet. Twine.com is a US company that is starting to expose what semantic technologies can do. Paul Allen’s company, Vulcan is investing in semantic web companies in the US and Europe.
Jana: Are semantic technologies going to be part of the web because of people championing the cause or because it is actually a necessary step?
Juan: People don’t realize that they have a problem. When they search in Google, they get results that work.. but they don’t know that there is more stuff out there that can be even better. people have so much social data, and have become social slaves of updating their profile everywhere. things like that… are problems that people don’t see them as problems. I believe it will be a common ground that will meet up somewhere in the middle. Where people are championing the cause, and half way through, users will realize that it is necessary.
For example, in the venture weekend that took place at UT couple months ago, came up with a better search experience for live music in austin (turn2live). Believe it or not, call it semantic web or not…. its a problem that people are realizing that they have and Google is not solving it. So problems exist, but people just live with it.
Jana: In the early days of the web, there was an explosion of new websites, due to the ease of learning HTML, from a business to a person to some crackpot talking about aliens. Even today, CSS and XHTML are not so difficult to learn that a determined person can’t learn them from W3C or other tutorials easily. If OWL becomes the norm for websites, what do you think the effects will be on the web? Do you think it is easy enough to learn that it will be readily adopted as part of the standard toolkit for web developers for businesses?
Juan: OWL is an ontology language, and one of the important principals of the Semantic Web is that data should be reused. Furthermore, ontologies need to be reused. Why would you want to reinvent the wheel? For normal programmers and designers, the use of OWL is not necessary, to a certain point. For example, if you want to add microformats and RDFa to describe your website, all you need is to learn some specific options that goes into HTML tags. These options are actually part of the FOAF (Friend Of A Friend) ontology. Therefore, nobody had to create their own ontology, they are reusing FOAF. On the other hand, the knowledge of specific W3C standards like OWL is necessary if you want to do data integration. If your database data describes a specific domain, where an ontology already exist, you may use that. But most commonly, you would want to create your own ontology. This ontology is the semantic layer that describes the content of different databases schemas that share the same domain. So it would be necessary to know OWL to get this done. My personal research work is to automate this process.
Jana: Following the same theme, do you think this will lead to an internet full of corporate-controlled websites, with sites only written by developers rather than individuals?
Juan: It may seem like this right now, because these are new technologies. RDF is less than 10 years old. OWL became a recommendation 4 years ago. SPARQL became a recommendation this year. These semantic technologies are just starting. In my opinion, the semantic web community needs to start creating easy and attractive ways for individuals to be part of the semantic web. This includes creating cool UI’s to navigate data, easy ways to create linked data, etc.
Jana: So, you are imagining technologies such as Drupal or Wordpress, that allow users to manage sites without a great deal of knowledge of the nuts and bolts of current web technologies?
Juan: Drupal and Wordpress are not technologies, they are applications. And these applications will offer stuff that will make users life easier. And they have already started. They do have RDFa and microformats!
Jana: Given all of the buzz, and my own familiarity with ontology, I am just very curious if the semantic web is truly necessary?
Juan: Check this video: http://juansequeda.blogspot.com/2008/08/predicting-next-5000-days-of-web-ted.html
Yahoo, Reuters, New York Times.. they are all doing semantic web stuff. The web is evolving that way. Is it THE solution? I don;t know. Nobody can solve all problems and save the universe. Right now we give stuff to the web (web 2.0.. user content generation) next generation is that the web will give stuff to us.
Jana: Will it be worth it to most people to go away from the web in its current form, with keyword searches on sites like Google, to a richer and more interconnected internet with potentially better search technology?
Juan: Semantic Web and semantic technologies is not only about making a better search engine. It may be that adding semantic technologies to current search engines won’t better search results. But what it will do is allow serendipity. It will allow users to discover relationships, things they didn’t know that existed. Search engines like Google will connect users with documents. The Semantic Web will connect users with data. That is what it is all about: a web of data.
Jana: For our more technical readers, I have a few additional questions: If no standardization comes about for mapping relational databases to domain ontologies, how do you see that as influencing the decisions about adoption of semantic technology by businesses? After all, the success of technology often lives or dies on its ease of adoption.
Juan: It would mean that several different solutions will be offered. It will become a business race to see who can offer the best solution.
Jana: Do you have any specific thoughts on a potential solution for the two initiatives of RDB2RDF - any rough ideas that you care to share on sketching out a solution beyond what you discussed in the Nodalities article?
Juan: I presented two aspects: Database and Ontology mapping and Direct Mapping. Both solutions are needed. The case where you have a company that can invest in a person who can be specialized in semantic technologies, who know OWL and knows the mapping languages. That company can make specific mappings. But you also may have the case that you want a simple automated system because you can’t invest in creating personalized mappings.
Juan: I really liked your questions. I understand that is may all sound a bit evangelist (which is what I proclaim what I do)… but its nice to actually get the correct words and reality out of me.
Jana: Juan, Thanks so much for taking the time.
For more info on the Semantic Web in Austin:
Juan’s SemanticWebAustin blog
SemanticWebAustin on LinkedIn
SemanticWebAustin onFaceBook
