Posted:August 18, 2014

Steam engine in action, from WikipediaA Critical Fit with the Semantic Web and AI

In the first parts of this series we introduced the idea of Big Structure, and the fact that it resides at the nexus of the semantic Web, artificial intelligence, natural language processing, knowledge bases, and Big Data. In this article, we look specifically at the work that Big Structure promotes in data interoperability as a way to clarify what the roles these various aspects play.

By its nature, data integration (the first step in data interoperability) means that data is being combined across two or more datasets. Such integration surfaces all of the myriad aspects of semantic heterogeneities, exactly the kinds of issues that the semantic Web and semantic technologies were designed to address. But resolving semantic differences can not be fulfilled by semantic technologies alone. While semantics can address the basis of differences in meaning and context, resolution of those differences or deciding between differing interpretations (that is, ambiguity) also requires many of the tools of artificial intelligence or natural language processing (NLP).

By decomposing this space into its various sources of semantic heterogeneities — as well as the work required in order to provide for such functions as search, disambiguation, mapping and transformations — we can begin to understand how all of these components can work together in order to help achieve data interoperability. This understanding, in turn, is essential to understand the stack and software architecture — and its accompanying information architecture — in order to best achieve these interoperability objectives.

So, this current article lays out this conceptual framework of components and roles. Later articles in this series will address the specific questions of software and information architectural design.

Data Interoperability in Relation to Semantics

Semantic technologies give us the basis for understanding differences in meaning across sources, specifically geared to address differences in real world usage and context. These semantic tools are essential for providing common bases for relating structured data across various sources and contexts. These same semantic tools are also the basis by which we can determine what unstructured content “means”, thus providing the structured data tags that also enable us to relate documents to conventional data sources (from databases, spreadsheets, tables and the like). These semantic technologies are thus the key enablers for making information — unstructured, semi-structured and structured — understandable to both humans and machines across sources. Such understandings are then a key basis for powering the artificial intelligence applications that are now emerging to make our lives more productive and less routine.

For nearly a decade I have used an initial schema by Pluempitiwiriyawej and Hammer to elucidate the sources of possible semantic differences between content. Over the years I have added language and encoding differences to this schema. Most recently, I have updated this schema to specifically call out semantic heterogeneities due to either conceptual differences between sources (largely arising from schema differences) and value and attribute differences amongst actual data. I have further added examples for what each of these categories of semantic heterogenities means [1].

This table of more than 40 sources of semantic heterogeneities clearly shows the possible impediments to get data to interoperate across sources:

Class Category Subcategory Examples Type [2] [4]
LANGUAGE Encoding Ingest Encoding Mismatch For example, ANSI v UTF-8 [3] Concept
Ingest Encoding Lacking Mis-recognition of tokens because not being parsed with the proper encoding [3] Concept
Query Encoding Mismatch For example, ANSI v UTF-8 in search [3] Concept
Query Encoding Lacking Mis-recognition of search tokens because not being parsed with the proper encoding [3] Concept
Languages Script Mismatch Variations in how parsers handle, say, stemming, white spaces or hyphens Concept
Parsing / Morphological Analysis Errors (many) Arabic languages (right-to-left) v Romance languages (left-to-right) Concept
Syntactical Errors (many) Ambiguous sentence references, such as I’m glad I’m a man, and so is Lola (Lola by Ray Davies and the Kinks) Concept
Semantics Errors (many) River bank v money bank v billiards bank shot Concept
CONCEPTUAL Naming Case Sensitivity Uppercase v lower case v Camel case Concept
Synonyms United States v USA v America v Uncle Sam v Great Satan Concept
Acronyms United States v USA v US Concept
Homonyms Such as when the same name refers to more than one concept, such as Name referring to a person v Name referring to a book Concept
Misspellings As stated Concept
Generalization / Specialization When single items in one schema are related to multiple items in another schema, or vice versa. For example, one schema may refer to “phone” but the other schema has multiple elements such as “home phone,” “work phone” and “cell phone” Concept
Aggregation Intra-aggregation When the same population is divided differently (such as, Census v Federal regions for states, England v Great Britain v United Kingdom, or full person names v first-middle-last) Concept
Inter-aggregation May occur when sums or counts are included as set members Concept
Internal Path Discrepancy Can arise from different source-target retrieval paths in two different schemas (for example, hierarchical structures where the elements are different levels of remove) Concept
Missing Item Content Discrepancy Differences in set enumerations or including items or not (say, US territories) in a listing of US states Concept
Missing Content Differences in scope coverage between two or more datasets for the same concept Concept
Attribute List Discrepancy Differences in attribute completeness between two or more datasets Attribute
Missing Attribute Differences in scope coverage between two or more datasets for the same attribute Attribute
Item Equivalence When two types (classes or sets) are asserted as being the same when the scope and reference are not (for example, Berlin the city v Berlin the official city-state) Concept
When two individuals are asserted as being the same when they are actually distinct (for example, John Kennedy the president v John Kennedy the aircraft carrier) Attribute
Type Mismatch When the same item is characterized by different types, such as a person being typed as an animal v human being v person Attribute
Constraint Mismatch When attributes referring to the same thing have different cardinalities or disjointedness assertions Attribute
DOMAIN Schematic Discrepancy Element-value to Element-label Mapping One of four errors that may occur when attribute names (say, Hair v Fur) may refer to the same attribute, or when same attribute names (say, Hair v Hair) may refer to different attribute scopes (say, Hair v Fur) or where values for these attributes may be the same but refer to different actual attributes or where values may differ but be for the same attribute and putative value.Many of the other semantic heterogeneities herein also contribute to schema discrepancies Attribute
Attribute-value to Element-label Mapping Attribute
Element-value to Attribute-label Mapping Attribute
Attribute-value to Attribute-label Mapping Attribute
Scale or Units Measurement Type Differences, say, in the metric v English measurement systems, or currencies Attribute
Units Differences, say, in meters v centimeters v millimeters Attribute
Precision For example, a value of 4.1 inches in one dataset v 4.106 in another dataset Attribute
Data Representation Primitive Data Type Confusion often arises in the use of literals v URIs v object types Attribute
Data Format Delimiting decimals by period v commas; various date formats; using exponents or aggregate units (such as thousands or millions) Attribute
DATA Naming Case Sensitivity Uppercase v lower case v Camel case Attribute
Synonyms For example, centimeters v cm Attribute
Acronyms For example, currency symbols v currency names Attribute
Homonyms Such as when the same name refers to more than one attribute, such as Name referring to a person v Name referring to a book Attribute
Misspellings As stated Attribute
ID Mismatch or Missing ID URIs can be a particular problem here, due to actual mismatches but also use of name spaces or not and truncated URIs Attribute
Missing Data A common problem, more acute with closed world approaches than with open world ones Attribute
Element Ordering Set members can be ordered or unordered, and if ordered, the sequences of individual members or values can differ Attribute
Sources of Semantic Heterogeneities

Ultimately, since we express all of our content and information with human language, we need to start there to understand the first sources in semantic differences. Like the differences in human language, we also have differences in world views and experience. These differences are often conceptual in nature and get at what we might call differences in real world perspectives and experiences. From there, we encounter differences in our specific realms of expertise or concern, or the applicable domain(s) for our information and knowledge. Then, lastly, we give our observations and characterizations data and values in order to specify and quantify our observations. But the attributes of data are subject to the same semantic vagaries as concepts, in addition to their own specific challenges in units and measures and how they are expressed.

From the conceptual to actual data, then, we see differences in perspective, vocabularies, measures and conventions. Only by systematically understanding these sources of heterogeneity — and then explicitly addressing them — can we begin to try to put disparate information on a common footing. Only by reconciling these differences can we begin to get data to interoperate.

Some of these differences and heterogeneities are intrinsic to the nature of the data at hand. Even for the same putative topics, data from French researchers will be expressed in a different language and with different measurements (metric) than will data from English researchers. Some of these heterogeneities also arise from the basis and connections asserted between datasets, as misuse of the sameAs predicate shows in many linked data applications [5].

Fortunately, in many areas we are transitioning by social convention to overcome many of these sources of semantic heterogeneity. A mere twenty years ago, our information technology systems expressed and stored data in a multitude of formats and systems. The Internet and Web protocols have done much to overcome these sources of differences, what I’ve termed elsewhere as climbing the data federation pyramid [6]. Semantic Web approaches where data items are assigned unique URIs are another source of making integration easier. And, whether all agree from a cultural aspect if it is good, we are also seeing English become the lingua franca of research and data.

The point of the table above is not to throw up our hands and say there is just too much complexity in data integration. Rather, by systematically decomposing the sources of semantic heterogeneity, we can anticipate and accommodate those sources not yet being addressed by cultural or technological conventions. While there is a large number of categories of semantic heterogeneity, these categories are also patterned and can be anticipated and corrected. These patterned sources inform us about what kind of work must be done to overcome semantic differences where they still reside.

Work Components in Data Interoperability

The description logics that underly the semantic Web already do a fair job of architecting this concept-attribute split in semantics. The concept split is known as the TBox (for terminological knowledge, the basis for T in TBox) and represents the schema or taxonomy of the domain at hand. The TBox is the structural and intensional component of conceptual relationships. The second split of instances is known as the ABox (for assertions, the basis for A in ABox) and describes the attributes of instances (individuals), the roles between instances, and other assertions about instances regarding their class membership with the TBox concepts [7].

The semantic Web is a standards-based effort by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium); many of its accomplishments have arisen around ontology and TBox-related efforts. Data integration has putatively been tackled from the perspective of linked data, but that methodology so far is short on attributes and property-mapping linkages between datasets and schema. There are as yet no reference vocabularies or schema for attributes [8]. Many of the existing linked data linkages are based on erroneous owl:sameAs assertions. It is fair to say that attribute and ABox-level semantics and interoperability have received scarce attention, even though the logic underpinnings exist for progress to be made.

This lack on the attributes or ABox-side of things is a major gap in the work requirements for data interoperability, as we see from the table below. The TBox development and understanding is quite good; and, a number of reference ontologies are available upon which to ground conceptual mappings [9]. But the ABox third is largely missing grounding references. And, the specialty work tasks, representing about the last third, are needful of better effectiveness and tooling.

For both the TBox and the ABox we are able to describe and model concepts (classes), instances (individuals), and are pretty good at being able to model relationships (predicates) between concepts and individuals. We also are able to ground concepts and their relationships through a number of reference concept ontologies [9]. But our understanding of attributes (the descriptive properties of instances) remains poor and ungrounded. Best practices — let alone general practices — still remain to be discovered.

TBox (concepts) Specialty Work Tasks ABox (data)
  • Definitions of the concepts and properties (relationships) of the controlled vocabulary
  • Declarations of concept axioms or roles
  • Inferencing of relationships, be they transitive, symmetric, functional or inverse to another property
  • Equivalence testing as to whether two classes or properties are equivalent to one another
  • Subsumption, which is checking whether one concept is more general than another
  • Satisfiability, which is the problem of checking whether a concept has been defined (is not an empty concept)
  • Classification, which places a new concept in the proper place in a taxonomic hierarchy of concepts
  • Logical implication, which is whether a generic relationship is a logical consequence of the declarations in the TBox
  • Infer property assertions implicit through the transitive property
  • Mappings are the core of interoperability in that concepts and attributes get matched across schema and datasets
  • Transformations are the means to bring disparate data into common grounds, the second leg of interoperability
  • Entailments, which are whether other propositions are implied by the stated condition
  • Instance checking, which verifies whether a given individual is an instance of (belongs to) a specified concept
  • Knowledge base consistency, which is to verify whether all concepts admit at least one individual
  • Realization, which is to find the most specific concept for an individual object
  • Retrieval, which is to find the individuals that are instances of a given concept
  • Identity relations, which is to determine the equivalence or relatedness of instances in different datasets]
  • Disambiguation, which is resolving references to the proper instance
  • Membership assertions, either as concepts or as roles
  • Attributes assertions
  • Linkages assertions that capture the above but also assert the external sources for these assignments
  • Consistency checking of instances
  • Satisfiability checks, which are that the conditions of instance membership are met
Work Tasks for a Data Interoperability Framework

Across the knowledge base (that is, the combination of the TBox and the ABox), the semantic Web has improved its search capabilities by formally integrating with conventional text search engines, such as Solr. Instance and consistency checking are pretty straightforward to do, but are often neglected steps in most non-commercial semantic installations. Critical areas such as mappings, transformations and identity evaluation remain weak work areas. This figure helps show these major areas and their work splits:

Work Splits in Data Interoperability

Work Splits Between the Semantic Web and AI

As we discussed earlier on the recent and rapid advances of artificial intelligence [10], the combination of knowledge bases and the semantic Web with AI machine learning (ML) and NLP techniques will show rapid improvements in data interoperability. The two stumbling blocks of not having a framework and architecture for interoperability, plus the lack of attributes groundings, have been controlling. Now that these factors are known and they are being purposefully addressed, we should see rapid improvements, similar to other areas in AI.

This re-embedding of the semantic Web in artificial intelligence, coupled with the conscious attention to provide reference groundings for data interoperability, should do much to address what are current, labor-intensive stumbling blocks in the knowledge management workflow.

Putting Some Grown-up Pants on the Semantic Web

The semantic Web clearly needs to play a central role in data integration and interoperability. Fortunately, like we have seen in other areas [11], semantic technologies lend themselves to generic functional software that can be designed for re-use in most any knowledge domain, chiefly by changing the data and ontologies guiding them. This means that reference libraries of groundings, mappings and transformations can be built over time and reused across enterprises and projects. Use of functional programming languages will also align well with the data and schema in knowledge management functions and ontologies and DSLs. These prospects parallel the emergence of knowledge-based AI (KBAI), which marries electronic Web knowledge bases with improvements in machine-learning algorithms.

The time for these initiatives is now. The complete lack of distributed data interoperability is no longer tolerable. High costs due to unacceptable manual efforts and too many failed projects plague the data interoperability efforts of the past. Data interoperability is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for enterprises needing to compete in a data-intensive environment. At scale, point-to-point integration efforts become ineffective; a form of reusable and transferable master data management (MDM) needs to emerge for the realiites of Big Data, and one that is based on the open and standard protocols of the Web.

Much tooling and better workflows and user interfaces will need to emerge. But the critical aspects are the ones we are addressing now: information and software architectures; reference groundings and attributes; and education about these very real prospects near at hand. The challenge of data interoperability in cooperation with its artificial intelligence cousin is where the semantic Web will finally put on its Big Boy pants.


[1] See Charnyote Pluempitiwiriyawej and Joachim Hammer, 2000. A Classification Scheme for Semantic and Schematic Heterogeneities in XML Data Sources, Technical Report TR00-004, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, 36 pp., September 2000. See https://cise.ufl.edu/tr/DOC/REP-2000-396.pdf. I first cited this report and extended it to cover languages (see [3]) in M.K. Bergman 2006. Sources and Classification of Semantic Heterogeneities, AI3:::Adaptive Information blog, June 6, 2006. See http://www.mkbergman.com/232/sources-and-classification-of-semantic-heterogeneities/). This most recent version added the examples and expanding the listing a bit further, to where it is no longer faithful to the original 2000 paper.
[2] Concept is the shorthand used for the schema or classes or TBox. Attribute is the shorthand used for instance data or entities and their ABox. I segregate class-relation properties (predicates) from instance-describing properties (attributes). This distinction is not use in standard TBox-ABox splits; its rationale will be described in a further article.
[3] See M.K. Bergman, 2006. Tutorial: Internet Languages, Character Sets and Encodings, BrightPlanet Corporation Technical Documentation, March 2006, 13 pp. See http://www.mkbergman.com/wp-content/themes/ai3v2/files/2006Posts/InternationalizationTutorial060323.pdf.
[4] See [7]. Also the TBox portion, or classes (concepts), is the basis of the ontologies. The ontologies establish the structure used for governing the conceptual relationships for that domain and in reference to external (Web) ontologies. The ABox portion, or instances (named entities), represents the specific, individual things that are the members of those classes. Named entities are the notable objects, persons, places, events, organizations and things of the world. Each named entity is related to one or more classes (concepts) to which it is a member. Named entities do not set the structure of the domain, but populate that structure. The ABox and TBox play different roles in the use and organization of the information and structure.
[5] M.K. Bergman 2009. When Linked Data Rules Fail, AI3:::Adaptive Information blog, November 16, 2009. See http://www.mkbergman.com/846/when-linked-data-rules-fail/.
[6] M.K. Bergman 2006. Climbing the Data Federation Pyramid, AI3:::Adaptive Information blog, May 25, 2006. See http://www.mkbergman.com/229/climbing-the-data-federation-pyramid/.
[7] M.K. Bergman 2008. Thinking ‘Inside the Box’ with Description Logics, AI3:::Adaptive Information blog, November 10, 2008. See http://www.mkbergman.com/466/thinking-inside-the-box-with-description-logics/.
[8] See the thread on the W3C semantic web mailing list beginning at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Jul/0129.html.
[9] Examples of upper-level ontologies include UMBEL, the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology (SUMO), the Descriptive Ontology for Linguistic and Cognitive Engineering (DOLCE), PROTON, Cyc and BFO (Basic Formal Ontology). Most of the content in their upper-levels is akin to broad, abstract relations or concepts (similar to the primary classes, for example, in a Roget’s Thesaurus) than to “generic common knowledge.” Most all of them have both a hierarchical and networked structure, though their actual subject structure relating to concrete things is generally pretty weak. See further the Wikipedia entry on upper ontologies.
[10] M.K. Bergman 2014. Spring Dawns on Artificial Intelligence, AI3:::Adaptive Information blog, June 2, 2014. See http://www.mkbergman.com/1731/spring-dawns-on-artificial-intelligence/.
[11] M.K. Bergman 2011. Ontology-driven Apps Using Generic Applications, AI3:::Adaptive Information blog, March 7, 2011. See http://www.mkbergman.com/948/ontology-driven-apps-using-generic-applications/.
Posted:July 16, 2014

Battle of Niemen, WWI, photo from WikimediaAre We Losing the War? Was it Even the Right One?

Cinemaphiles will readily recognize Akira Kurosawa‘s Rashomon film of 1951. And, in the 1960s, one of the most popular book series was Lawrence Durrell‘s The Alexandria Quartet. Both, each in its own way, tried to get at the question of what is truth by telling the same story from the perspective of different protagonists. Whether you saw this movie or read these books you know the punchline: the truth was very different depending on the point of view and experience — including self-interest and delusion — of each protagonist. All of us recognize this phenomenon of the blind men’s view of the elephant.

I have been making my living and working full time on the semantic Web and semantic technologies now for a full decade. So has my partner at Structured Dynamics, Fred Giasson. Others have certainly worked longer in this field. The original semantic Web article appeared in Scientific American in 2000 [1], and the foundational Resource Description Framework data model dates from 1999. Fred and I have our own views of what has gone on in the trenches of the semantic Web over this period. We thought a decade was a good point to look back, share what we’ve experienced, and discover where to point our next offensive thrusts.

What Has Gone Well?

The vision of the semantic Web in the Scientific American article painted a picture of globally interconnected data leveraged by agents or bots designed to make our lives easier and more automated. However, by the time that I got directly involved, nearly five years after standards first started to be published, Tim Berners-Lee and many leading proponents of RDF were beginning to shift focus to linked data. The agents, and automation, and ontologies of the initial vision were being downplayed in favor of effective means to publish and consume data based on RDF. In many ways, linked data resembled a re-branding.

This break had been coming for a while, memorably captured by a 2008 ISWC session led by Peter F. Patel-Schneider [2]. This internal division of viewpoint likely caused effort to be split that would have been better spent in proselytizing and improving tools. It also diverted somewhat into internal squabbles. While many others have pointed to a tactical mistake of using an XML serialization for early versions of RDF as a key factor is slowing initial adoption, a factor I agree was at play, my own suspicion is that the philosophical split taking place in the community was the heavier burden.

Whatever the cause, many of the hopes of the heady days of the initial vision have not been obtained over the past fifteen years, though there have been notable successes.

The biomedical community has been the shining exemplar for data interoperability across an entire discipline, with earth sciences, ecology and other science-based domains also showing interoperability success [3]. Families of ontologies accompanied by tooling and best practices have characterized many of these efforts. Sadly, though, most other domains have not followed suit, and commercial interoperability is nearly non-existent.

Most all of the remaining success has resided in single-institution data integration and knowledge representation initiatives. IBM’s Watson and Apple’s Siri are two amazing capabilities run and managed by single institutions, as is Google’s Knowledge Graph. Also, some individual commercial and government enterprises, willing to pay support to semantic technology experts, have shown success in data integration, using RDF, SKOS and OWL.

We have seen the close kinship between natural language, text, and Q & A with the semantic Web, also demonstrated by Siri and more recent offshoots. We have seen a trend toward pairing great-performing open source text engines, notably Solr, with RDF and triple stores. Recommendation systems have shown some success. Linked data publishing has also had some notable examples, including the first of the lot, DBpedia, with certain institutional publishers (such as the Library of Congress, Eurostat, The Getty, Europeana, OpenGLAM [galleries, archives, libraries, and museums]) showing leadership and the commitment of significant vocabularies to linked data form.

On the standards front, early experience led to new and better versions of the SPARQL query language (SPARQL 1.1 was greatly improved in the last decade and appears to be one capability that sells triple stores), RDF 1.1 and OWL 2. Certain open source tools have become prominent, including Protégé, Virtuoso (open source) and Jena (among unnamed others, of course). At least in the early part of this history, tool development was rapid and flourishing, though the innovation pace has dropped substantially according to my tracking database Sweet Tools.

What Has Disappointed?

My biggest disappointments have been, first, the complete lack of distributed data interoperability, and, second, the lack or inability of commercial enterprises to embrace and adopt semantic technologies on their own. The near absence of discussion about instance records and their attributes helps frame the current maturity of the semantic Web. Namely, it has yet to crack the real nuts of data integration and interoperability across organizations. Again, with the exception of the biomedical community, neither in the linked data realm nor in the broader semantic Web, can we point to information based on semantic Web principles being widely shared between systems and organizations.

Some in the linked data community have explicitly acknowledged this. The abstract for the upcoming COLD 2014 workshop, for example, states [4]:

. . . applications that consume Linked Data are not yet widespread. Reasons may include a lack of suitable methods for a number of open problems, including the seamless integration of Linked Data from multiple sources, dynamic discovery of available data and data sources, provenance and information quality assessment, application development environments, and appropriate end user interfaces.

We have written about many issues with linked data, ranging from the use of improper mapping predicates; to the difficulty in publishing; and to dereferencing URIs on the Web since they are sparse and not always properly implemented [5]. But ultimately, most linked data is just instance data that can be represented in simpler attribute-value form. By shunning a knowledge representation language (namely, OWL) at the processing end, we have put too much burden on what are really just instance records. Linked data does not get the balance of labor right. It ignores the reality that data consumers want actionable information over being able to click from data item to data item, with overall quality reduced to the lowest common denominator. If a publisher has the interest and capability to publish quality linked data, great! It should become part of the data ingest pool and the data becomes easy to consume. But to insist on linked data across the board creates unnecessary barriers. Linked data growth has not nearly kept pace with broader structured data growth on the Web [6].

At the enterprise level, the semantic technology stack is hard to grasp and understand for newcomers. RDF and OWL awareness and understanding are nearly nil in companies without prior semantic Web experience, or 99.9% of all companies. This is not a failure of the enterprises; it is the failure of us, the advocates and suppliers. While we (Structured Dynamics) have developed and continue to refine the turnkey Open Semantic Framework stack, and have spent more efforts than most in documenting and explicating its use, the systems are still too complicated. We combine complicated content management systems as user front-ends to a complicated semantic technology stack that needs to be driven by a complicated (to develop) ontology. And we think we are doing some of the best technology transfer around!

Moreover, while these systems are good at integrating concepts and schema, they are virtually silent on the question of actual data integration. It is shocking to say, but the semantic Web has no vocabularies or tools sufficient to enable data items for the same entity from two different datasets to be combined or reconciled [7]. These issues can be solved within the individual enterprise, but again the system breaks when distributed interoperability is the desire. General Web-based inconsistencies, such as in HTML coding or mime types, impose hurdles on distributed interoperability. These are some of the reasons why we see the successes in the context (generally) of single institutions, as opposed to anything that is truly yet Web-wide.

These points, as is often the case with software-oriented technologies, come down to a disappointing state of tooling. Markets drive developer interest, and market share has been disappointing; thus, fewer tools. Tool interest comes from commercial engagements, and not generally grants, the major source of semantic Web funding, particularly in the European Union. Pragmatic tools that solve real problems in user adoption are rarely a sufficient basis for getting a Ph.D.

The weaknesses in tooling extend from basic installation, to configuration, unit and integrated tests, data conversion and lifting, and, especially, all things ontology. Weaknesses in ontology tooling include (critically) mapping, consistency and coherency checking, authoring, managing, version control, re-factoring, optimization, and workflows. All of these issues are solvable; they are standard software challenges. But it is hard to conquer markets largely with the wrong army pursuing the wrong objectives in response to the wrong incentives.

Yet, despite the weaknesses in tooling, we believe we have been fairly effective in transferring technology to our clients. It takes more documentation and more training and, often, accompanying tool development or improvement in the workflow areas critical to the project. But clients need to be told this as well. In these still early stages, successful clients are going to have to expend more staff effort. With reasonable commitment, it is demonstrable that an enterprise can take over and manage a large-scale semantic engagement on its own. Still, for semantic technologies to have greater market penetration, it will be necessary to lower those commitments.

How Has the Environment Changed?

Of course, over the period of this history, the environment as a whole has changed markedly. The Web today is almost unrecognizable from the Web of 15 years ago. If one assumes that Web technologies tend to have a five year or so period of turnover, we have gone through at least two to three generations of change on the Web since the initial vision for the semantic Web.

The most systemic changes in this period have been cloud computing and the adoption of the smartphone. These, plus the network of workstations approach to data centers, have radically changed what is desirable in a large-scale, distributed architecture. APIs have become RESTful and database infrastructures have become flatter and more distributed. These architectures and their supporting infrastructure — such as virtual servers, MapReduce variants, and many applications — have in turn opened the door to performant management of large volumes of flat (key-value or graph) data, or big data.

On the Web side, JavaScript, just a few years older than the semantic Web, is now dominant in Web pages and taking on server-side roles (such as through Node.js). In turn, JSON has now grown in popularity as a form of data representation and transfer and is being adopted to the semantic Web (along with codifying CSV). Mobile, too, affects the Web side because of the need for multiple-platform deployments, touchscreen use, and different user interface paradigms and layout designs. The app ecosystem around smartphones has become a huge source for change and innovation.

Extremely germane to the semantic Web — indeed, overall, for artificial intelligence — has been the occurrence of knowledge-based AI (KBAI). The marrying of electronic Web knowledge bases — such as Wikipedia or internal ones like the Google search index or its Knowledge Graph — with improvements in machine-learning algorithms is systematically mowing down what used to be called the Grand Challenges of computing. Sensors are also now entering the picture, from our phones to our homes and our cars, that exposes the higher-order requirement for data integration combined with semantics. NLP kits have improved in terms of accuracy and execution speed; many semantic tasks such as tagging or categorizing or questioning already perform at acceptable levels for most projects.

On the tooling side, nearly all building blocks for what needs to be done next are available in open source, with some platform areas quite functional (including OSF, of course). We have also been successful in finding clients that agree to open source the development work we do for them, since they are benefiting from the open source development that went on before them.

What Did We Set Out to Achieve?

When Structured Dynamics entered the picture, there were already many tools available and core languages had been released. Our view of the world at that time led us to adopt two priorities for what we thought might be a five year or so plan. We have achieved the objectives we set for ourselves then, though it has taken us a couple of years longer to realize.

One priority was to develop a reference structure for concepts to serve as a “grounding” basis for relating datasets, vocabularies, schema, taxonomies, or ontologies. We achieved this with our first commercial release (v 1.00) of UMBEL in February 2011. Subsequent to that we have progressed to v 1.05. In the coming months we will see two further major updates that have been under active effort for about eight months.

The other priority was to create a turnkey foundation for a semantic enterprise. This, too, has been achieved, with many more releases. The Open Semantic Framework (OSF) is now in version 3.00, backed by a 500-article training documentation and technical wiki. Support tooling now includes automated installation, testing, and data transfer and synchronization.

Because our corporate objectives were largely achieved it was time to look at lessons learned and set new directions. This article, in part, is a result of that process.

How Did Our Priorities Evolve Over the Decade?

I thought it would be helpful to use the content of this AI3 blog to track how concerns and priorities changed for me and Structured Dynamics over this history. Since I started my blog quite soon after my entry into the semantic Web, the record of my perspectives was conterminous and rather complete.

The fifty articles below trace my evolution in knowledge and skills, as well as a progression from structured data to the semantic Web. These 50 articles represent about 11% of all articles in my chronological archive; they were selected as being the most germane to the question of evolution of the semantic Web.

After early ramp up, most of the formative discussion below occurred in the early years. Posts have declined most recently as implementation has taken over. Note most of the links below have  PDFs available from their main pages.

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

The early years of this history were concentrated on gathering background information and getting educated. The release of DBpedia in 2007 showed how knowledge bases would become essential to the semantic Web. We also identified that a lack of shared reference concepts was making it difficult to “ground” different semantic Web datasets or schema to one another. Another key theme was the diversity of native data structures on the Web, but also how all of them could be readily represented in RDF.

By 2008 we began to study the logical underpinnings to the semantic Web as we were coming to understand how it should be practiced. We also began studying Web-oriented architectures as key design guidance going forward. These themes continued into 2009, though now informed by clients and applications, which was expanding our understanding of requirements (and, sometimes, shortcomings) in the enterprise marketplace. The importance of an open world approach to the basic open nature of knowledge management was cementing a clarity of the role and fit of semantic solutions in the overall informaton space. The general community shift to linked data was beginning to surface worries.

2010 marked a shift for us to become more of a popularizer of semantic technologies in the enterprise, useful to attract and inform prospects. The central role of ontologies as the guiding structures (either as codified knowledge structures or as instruction sets for the platform) for OSF opened realizations that generic functional software could be designed that can be re-used in most any knowledge domain by simply changing the data and ontologies guiding them. This increased our efforts in ontology tooling and training, now geared more to the knowledge worker.  The importance of groundings for aligning schema and data caused us to work hard on UMBEL in 2011 to get it to a commercial release state.

All of these efforts were converging on design thoughts about the nature of information and how it is signified and communicated. The bases of an overall philosophy regarding our work emerged around the teachings of Charles S Peirce and Claude Shannon. Semantics and groundings were clearly essential to convey accurate messages. Simple forms, so long as they are correct, are always preferred over complex ones because message transmittal is more efficient and less subject to losses (inaccuracies). How these structures could be represented in graphs affirmed the structural correctness of the design approach. The now obvious re-awakening of artificial intelligence helps to put the semantic Web in context: a key subpart, but still a subset, of artificial intelligence. The percentage of formative articles directly related over these last couple of years to the semantic Web drops much, as the emphasis continues to shift to tech transfer.

What Else Did We Learn?

Not all lessons learned warranted an article on their own. So, we have also reflected on what other lessons we learned over this decade. The overall theme is: Simpler is better.

Distributed data interoperability across the Web is a fundamental weakness. There are no magic tricks to integrate data. Data mapping and integration will always require massaging. Each data integration activity needs its own solution. However, it can greatly be helped with ontologies and with better tooling.

In keeping with the lesson of grounding, a reference ontology for attributes is missing. It is needed as a bridge across disparate datasets describing similar entities or with different attributes for the same entities. It is also a means to reduce the pairwise combinatorial issue of integrating multiple datasets. And, whatever is done in the data integration area, an open world approach will be essential given the nature of knowledge information.

There is good design and best practice for distributed architectures. The larger these installations become, the more important it is to use a lightweight, loosely-coupled design. RESTful Web services and their interfaces are key. Simpler services with fewer functions can be designed to complement one another and increase throughput effectiveness.

Functional programming languages align well with the data and schema in knowledge management functions. Ontologies, as structures, also fit well with functional languages. The ability to create DSLs should continue to improve bringing the knowledge management function directly into the hands of its users, the knowledge workers.

In a broader sense, alluded to above, the semantic Web is but a set of concepts. There are multiple ways to use it. It can be leveraged without requiring “core” semantic Web tools such a triple stores. Solr can act as a semantic store because semantics, NLP and search are naturally married. But, the semantic Web, in turn, needs to become re-embedded in artificial intelligence, now backed by knowledge bases, which are themselves creatures of the semantic Web.

Design needs to move away from linked data or the semantic Web as the goals. The building blocks are there, though perhaps not yet combined or expressed well. The real improvements now to the overall knowledge function will result from knowledge bases, artificial intelligence, and the semantic Web working together. That is the next frontier.

Overall, we perhaps have been in the wrong war for the wrong reasons. Linked data is certainly not an end and mostly appears to represent work, rather than innovation. The semantic Web is no longer the right war, either, because improvements there will not come so much from arguing semantic languages and paradigms. Learning how to master distributed data integration will teach the semantic Web much, and coupling artificial intelligence with knowledge bases will do much to improve the most labor-intensive stumbling blocks in the knowledge management workflow: mappings and transformations. Further, these same bases will extend the reach into analytical and statistical realms.

The semantic Web has always been an infrastructure play to us. On that basis, it will be hard to ever judge market penetration or dominance. So, maybe in terms of a vision from 15 years ago the growth of the semantic Web has been disappointing. But, for Fred and me, we are finally seeing the landscape clearly and in perspective, even if from a viewpoint that may be different from others’. From our vantage point, we are at the exciting cusp of a new, broader synthesis.

NOTE: This is Part I of a two-part series. Part II will appear shortly.

[1] Tim Berners-Lee, James Hendler, and Ora Lassila, “The Semantic Web,” in Scientific American 284(5): pp 34-43, 2001. See http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21&catID=2.
[2] For those with a spare 90 minutes or so, you may also want to view this panel session and debate that took place on “An OWL 2 Far?” at ISWC ’08 in Karlsruhe, Germany, on October 28, 2008. The panel was chaired by Peter F. Patel-Schneider (Bell Labs, Alcathor) with the panel members of Stefan Decker (DERI Galway), Michel Dumontier (Carleton University), Tim Finin (University of Maryland) and Ian Horrocks (University of Oxford), with much audience participation. See http://videolectures.net/iswc08_panel_schneider_owl/
[3] Open Biomedical Ontologies (OBO) is an effort to create controlled vocabularies for shared use across different biological and medical domains. As of 2006, OBO formed part of the resources of the U.S. National Center for Biomedical Ontology (NCBO). As of the date of this article, there were 376 ontologies listed on the NCBO’s BioOntology site. Both OBO and BioOntology provide tools and best practices.
[4] Fifth International Workshop on Consuming Linked Data (COLD 2014), co-located with the 13th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) in Riva del Garda, Italy, October 19-20.
[7] See the thread on the W3C semantic web mailing list beginning at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/semantic-web/2014Jul/0129.html.
Posted:June 2, 2014

Dawn of Artificial IntelligenceEight Massive Trends are Waking AI from Its Dark Winters

When I inaugurated this AI3 blog in 2005 I made this statement in the about section to clarify that the “three AIs” stood for adaptive information, adaptive innovation, and adaptive infrastructure, and not the AI of artificial intelligence:

. . . I personally believe artificial intelligence to be a lot of hooey and hype at best, and a misnomer and misdirection at worst. . . . ‘Artificial intelligence’ is a misdirection of attention and energy.

Gulp. OK. Time to take my medicine.

I am today formally retracting those statements — probably should have done so some time ago — and want to explain why. As much as anything, it has to do with the changing understanding of what is artificial intelligence, recently affirmed by global-scale applications and technologies, working effectively right now.

Many Winters within AI

Though the idea of automatons and intelligent agents standing in for humans is about as old as human storytelling, the real basic ideas around artificial intelligence became current as part of the World War II effort and were finally given a name in a famous 1956 conference at Dartmouth. Initially namers and advocates of artificial intelligence included such founders as John McCarthy, Herbert Simon, Claude Shannon and Marvin Minsky. Money to support early interest in artificial intelligence came from the part of the US military that eventually became ARPA (now DARPA), with the funding going to individual researchers to use as they wished as opposed to specific projects. Along with many futuristic visions of the 1950s to 1970s, the promises for artificial intelligence were bold, including being able to capture and automate most notable basic human capabilities.

Popular movies and books promoted the ideas of autonomous robots that we could speak with and command and that would anticipate our needs and wishes so as to act as simulacrum agents lessening our burdens and adding to our leisure and capabilities [1]. Algorithms would be discovered and codified that would mimic the basis of human thought and intelligence. The idea of the Turing machine established a defensible basis for foreseeing that any problem of mathematical logic could be captured and taken on by computers.

The predictable failure of this vision to deliver caused a backlash, sufficient that the US Congress prohibited further open-ended funding via the Mansfield Amendments in 1969 and 1973, such that by 1974 AI funding in the US had largely dried up. Similar restrictions were applied to the British research community. The result of this backlash caused the first of what would prove to be many “winters” of funding and acceptance for AI.

Roughly a decade later, in response to the perceived Japanese threat for “fifth-generation” computing in the mid-1980s, a number of AI programs were again funded. While hardware developments were proceeding apace, efforts around McCarthy’s AI-oriented language Lisp and common sense logic frameworks (what are now called ontologies or knowledge graphs) such as Cyc began to receive sponsorship again. The mid-1990s were the time of “expert systems,” to be populated by knowledge engineers charged with interviewing internal subject matter experts (SMEs) to codify their knowledge for later reuse. These efforts, too, disappointed in terms of the lack of practical benefits delivered. More AI winters ensued.

AI (“artificial intelligence”) came to again lose its credibility. Some researchers moved into specific algorithmic disciplines — Bayesian statistics and neural networks predominant — while others shifted into such areas a “hyperlinks” and what became the semantic Web. Today, one could argue, that the lost mojo of AI has affected those in the semantic Web in almost a dialectic way. First, there are those who embrace the idea of intelligent agents and global knowledge structures, more-or-less in keeping with some sort of vision of artificial intelligence. Second, there are those that have seen the failures of the past, do not want to repeat them, and are more inclined to support “loosely bounded” structure focused on bottoms-up assertions. OWL modelers and ontologists tend to occupy the first camp; linked data advocates more the second camp.

The natural community for knowledge representation and management has thus tended to bifurcate a bit: global, “visionary” AI types, with history to overcome and challenged by the sheer scale of what emerged from the Internet; and incrementalists, happy to accept a bit of RDF structured data in the hopes of an ongoing evolution to more structure and interoperability.

Ten years ago, when I made the conscious decision to reject the AI of artificial intelligence as a label for this blog, an algorithmic-vision of AI seemed “wrong” and not in keeping with the general trends of the Web. That was the basis and justification for my then-statements on AI. But a funny thing happened on the way to a cogent forecast: a massive disruption called the Internet came about that — while it took a decade to gestate — changed the whole underlying substrate over which AI could take place. Like so much of history, innovation had presented to us an entirely different reality upon which to “understand” and develop artificial intelligence. It is those changes — plus the fruits from them — that is defining AI in a new light.

Eight AI Megatrends

There are, by my reckoning, at least eight major trends that have been improving AI’s prospects, especially over the past decade (Numbers #3 to #7 below are quite related to AI, the other three are general trends.) Some of the proven wonders we now see in use such as speech recognition, speech synthesis, language translations, entity recognition, image and facial recognition, computer vision, question answering, autocompletion and spell correction, recommendation systems, sentiment analysis, information extraction, document categorization, natural language processing, machine learning, reasoning, optical character recognition, word sense disambiguation, search and information retrieval, and text generation and summarization, with their many additional categories and sub-categories, are proof these trends are making a difference. None individually constitutes what may be called “AI”, but, in combination, they show compellingly that much of AI’s initial vision is indeed being fulfilled to some degree and in some specific aspect today.

Nearly all of these applications correspond to the Grand Challenges for symbolic computing identified in the 1980s. Until a decade ago, very few of them save search and initial NLP were producing results with sufficient quality and accuracy. Now, all are.

In the past ten years, most evident in the past five, tremendous breakthroughs have occurred across the entire spectrum of artificial intelligence applications. We can point to at least the eight following megatrends enabling these breakthroughs.

#1 Computer Power

A constant river of innovation has fueled the logarithmic power improvements in computers since the first transistor. Moore’s law has led to massive improvements in hardware cost, numbers of computation cycles, and amounts of bits stored. Networking capabilities are now truly global and numbers of interconnected devices exceeds billions. Computer software innovations lead to faster and better procedures and methods; as a category, software innovation likely exceeds hardware improvements as a source of computing productivity. What today fits in the palm of our hand thirty years ago required entire rooms, and did not do one billionth of what can be done today.

The rich savanna of computing has itself encouraged a bloom of innovations, many of which contribute to artificial intelligence prospects.

#2 The Internet (and Web)

Though clearly a related function to the general improvements in computing and hardware, the advent of the Internet and its more relevant offspring of the Web has had, I believe, the most fundamental impact on the change in prospects for artificial intelligence. The sheer scale of the Web network has made available crowdsourced innovations like Wikipedia and other crowdsourced data and knowledge bases. More broadly, global content across the entire Web, accessible via a common HTTP protocol, multiplied every individual’s access to information — pay close attention — by a factor of a billion or more.

Because the entire Web is interconnected, the sheer raw grist of connected data available to analyze such things as relatedness or similarity is gamechanging. Manual constructs and derived relations from years past can now be multiplied and magnified at Web scale. Any relationship test or validation can be accomplished nearly instantaneously and at (essentially) zero cost. Phenomenal!

#3 Expectations

The discrediting of AI and its holdover smell has itself been a factor working in its favor. By being discredited, it has been possible for multiple possible AI components, many listed herein, to be developed and attended to in relative isolation. Each of today’s current pieceparts to AI could be focused upon on their own, without taint from the broader “AI” brush. Because the constituents were recognizable and justifiable on their own, they did not need to fulfill the past overblown visions and expectations for “AI” writ large. The pieceparts could develop in peace.

This observation, if true, means that grand visions like “artificial intelligence” are perhaps rarely (ever?) the result of a grand top-down plan. Rather, like a good stew, it is individual components that need to mature and become available to create the final meal. Since these ingredients need to stand or contribute on their own for their own purposes, the actual resulting stew may vary as to its ultimate ingredients. If one ingredient is not ripe or available, we vary our recipe according to what is available. There is no one single recipe leading to a tasty stew.

Put another way, AI has been flying under the radar for at least the last ten to fifteen years. Portions of the older AI agenda have benefited from specific attention. Better still, the new emergence of the idea of artificial intelligence is also more toned down and practical. Artificial intelligence is now, I believe, understood to be part of a process and not some autonomous embodiment. Human interaction and communication are themselves imprecise and subject to error. Why should not be artificial means to boost those same human capabilities?.

From the standpoint of expectations, artificial intelligence has evolved from science fiction to essentially zero awareness, meanwhile delivering, on a broad scale, focused wonder capabilities such as (nearly) instantaneous translations across 60 leading human languages.

#4 Global Knowledge Bases

How can a system promise useful suggestions or alternatives if it is bereft of information?

At the local or personal level we well understand that we need to describe ourselves via attributes, the more the merrier in terms of a more complete description. A pretty good record for me would include such things as physical description, image, work and economic description, family and life description, education description, text narratives from fun to historical,  etc. The more complete description of me requires many sources and many attributes and many perspectives. But, of course, I do not live alone in the world. To describe my world, which constantly changes, I need to describe other thousands of entities I encounter daily. Each of these, too, has many attributes and relationships to other entities. Each of these entities also changes over time (has histories) and place. So, context becomes another critical dimension.

The growth of the Web at scale has resulted in some tremendous knowledge bases of entities and concepts. Freebase and Wikipedia are two of the best known, but virtually every domain has its own sources and richness. These knowledge bases, in turn, are often open for use by others. Text mining and digital data mean these data can be combined and made to interoperate. That process is only just beginning.

Though early efforts in artificial intelligence understood that capturing and modeling common sense was both an essential and surprisingly difficult task — the impetus, for example, behind the thirty-year effort of the Cyc knowledge base –  what is new in today’s circumstance is how these massive knowledge bases can inform and guide symbolic computing. The literally thousands of research papers regarding use of Wikipedia data alone [2] shows how these massive knowledge bases are providing base knowledge around which AI algorithms can work.

The abiding impression is that the availability of these data sources has fundamentally changed how AI is done. Unlike the early years of mostly algorithms and rules, AI has now evolved to explicitly embrace Web-scale content and data and the statistics that may be derived from global corpora.

#5 Deep Learning

Machine learning is a core AI concept used to determine discriminative characteristics or patterns within source input data. It has been a constant emphasis of AI since the beginning.

Various machine learning algorithms — such as Markov chains, neural networks, conditional random fields, Bayesian statistics, and many other options — can be characterized among many dimensions. Some are supervised, meaning they need to be trained against a standard corpus in order to estimate parameters; others require little or no training, but may be less accurate as a result. Some are statistically based; others are based on pattern matching of various forms.

A more recent trend has been to combine multiple techniques in what is known as deep learning, where the problem set is modeled as a layered hierarchy of distributed representations, with each layer using (often) neural network techniques for unsupervised learning, followed by supervised feedback (often termed “back-propagation”) to fine-tune parameters. While computationally slower than other techniques, this approach has the advantage of automating the supervised learning phase and is proving generally most effective across a range of AI applications.

More fundamentally, there is a virtuous circle of feedback occurring between AI machine learning algorithms and reference knowledge and statistical bases (see next). This can extend the accuracy, completeness and efficiency of supervised methods. Some notable academic departments have relied on Web-scale corpora (University of Washington and Carnegie Mellon University are two prominent examples in the US). The most dominant player in this realm, however, has been Google (though all of the major search engine and social networking companies have smaller initiatives of similar character).

#6 Big Statistical Data

Using both statistical techniques and results from machine learning, massive datasets of entities, relationships and facts are being extracted from the Web. Some of these efforts, such as the academic NELL (CMU) or KnowItAll or Open IE (UWash) involve extractions from the open Web. Others, such as the terabyte (TB) n-gram listings from Google, are derived from Web-scale pages or Google books. These examples are but a sampling of various datasets and corpora available.

These various statistical datasets may be used directly for research on their own, or may contribute to further bootstrapping of still further-refined AI techniques. Similar datasets are aiding advertising placements, search term disambiguation and machine (language) translation. In some cases, while the full datasets may not be available, open APIs may be available for areas such as entity identification or tabular data.

What is important about these trends is that data, statistics and algorithms are all now being combined in various ways with the aim of achieving acceptable AI-backed results at Web scale. It is really via the combination of these techniques that we are seeing the most impressive AI results.

#7 Big Structure

A more nascent area, really in just its first stages of effectiveness, is the application of “big structure” to all of this information. By “big structure” I mean the application of domain and knowledge graphs to help arrange and place the concepts and entities at hand.

At Web scale, the early Yahoo! directory and Open Directory were the first examples of structuring domains. Wikipedia next became the most widely used category structure; Freebase, for example, used Wikipedia to initially bootstrap its own structure. A portion of Freebase is now what is used for Google’s own Knowledge Graph. DBpedia also created its own ontology out of the infobox structure of Wikipedia. The major search engines have also put forward the schema.org structure as a means of (mostly) organizing entity and attribute information and structured data. schema.org putatively is an input to the Google Knowledge Graph, but the exact mechanism and ability to trace the results is pretty opaque.

The need for big structure is rapidly emerging as one of the key challenges for Web-scale AI. The Web and crowdsourcing appears well suited to being able to generate entity and attribute data. What remains unclear is how this information can be coherently organized at the scale of the Web. This problem is becoming acute, because the success of “big data” on the Web needs to ultimately find an organized, coherent expression in the aggregate. This is one major AI challenge that remains distinctly unsolved, though promising first steps exist.

#8 Open Source and Content

The major theme of these AI breakthroughs comes from leveraging the global content of the Web. And this enabler, in turn, has been critically dependent on the open source nature of AI algorithms, software code and code infrastructure and architecture, and open content and (generally) open APIs. Open code, algorithms, datasets and knowledge have expanded the pool of human intelligence that can be brought to bear on the question of artificial intelligence. The positive feedbacks greased through open channels of information, code and data have been absolutely essential to the amazing AI progress of the past few years.

To be sure, open does not mean a level playing field. (See discussion on Google, next.) But, without open source and open content and data, I think no one could argue that progress would have been anywhere near as rapid as it has been. The synergy arising from open source and content has thus been another essential factor in the recent and rapid progress in AI.

The Race to Intelligence

Since innovation is the source of wealth creation, it is also no surprise that the megatrends surrounding AI have also drawn significant investment interest. This interest is in the form of a race to acquire the most innovative AI startups and human expertise (capital) in AI. Since Google has been my common touchstone in this piece — and because Google is the biggest gorilla in the room — we can use them to illustrate the scope and pace of this race. (Though Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft and IBM are also clearly entrants in this race.)

A number of recent articles, notably ones in the Washington Post and The Economist, have highlighted the total dollars at stake in this AI race. Over the past few years, there have been perhaps more than $20 billion in AI-related company acquisitions, with Nest Technologies (Google, $3.2 B), Kiva Systems (Amazon, $775 M), and DeepMind (Google, $660 M) some of the largest.

Within Google alone, there has been a buying spree in search improvements (~ $1.4 B total), robotics ($80 M), machine synthesis and recognition ($250 M), machine learning ($700 M), smart devices ($3.6 B), compression technologies ($200 M), natural language processing ($80 M), and a smattering of others ($50 M), not to mention its internal efforts in self-driving cars. I don’t monitor Google on a constant basis and likely missed some major and relevant acquisitions, but it does appear that Google has perhaps spent over $6 billion over the past five years or so for AI-related acquisitions [3].

As important as start-up acquisitions has been Google’s commitment to hire and partner with many of the leading AI researchers in the world. Besides the strong partnerships Google maintains with such institutions such as the University of Washington, Carnegie Mellon University, MIT, Stanford, UC Berkeley and others, it has also staffed its research ranks with prominent names from those institutions and others.

Peter Norvig, one of the early advocates for combining algorithmic and statistical AI, joined Google in 2001 and is now its Director of Research. Most recently and notably, Ray Kurzweil joined Google as Director of Engineering in 2012. Other notable AI researchers at Google include Alon Halevy (FusionTables), Ramanathan Guha (schema.org), Geoffrey Hinton (deep learning), Evgeniy Gabrilovich (search and machine learning), and many others for whom I am not as familiar with their research. There is probably more AI talent combined at Google than has ever been assembled in one institution before.

With IBM’s Watson getting its own division and Facebook funding an AI center to the tune of $10 B, plus Apple making a similar commitment to robotic manufacturing, it is clear that all of the major players in the computing space are making big bets on AI moving into the future.

AI is Itself But One Beneficiary of These Trends

Since the early winters in artificial intelligence, a phenomenon has developed called the “AI effect“. It really has meant two different things.

First, AI researchers have tended to call their research anything but artificial intelligence. One of the broader and trendy substitutes is known as cognitive computing. Many of the domains and disciplines I noted above got their names and prominent use as substitutes for what used to be labeled as AI. In any case, we can see that AI indeed is a big tent with many components and thrusts.

Second, the “AI effect” also refers to the fact that once an AI technique is embedded in some everyday use, it is no longer perceived as something AI and is taken as a given. Douglas Hofstadter expressed the AI effect concisely by quoting Tesler‘s Theorem: “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.”

I was perhaps right to initially reject the algorithmic-centric view of AI from the early years. But now, when matched with big data, big statistics and big structure, all embedded into phenomenal advances in computing power, it is also clear that we are dawning into a new age of AI. One only needs to look at the wondrous progress on many of what had seemed to be impossible Grand Challenges over the past five years to gain an appreciation of the pace and breadth of new developments to come.

These developments will reify and foster similar emphases in semantic technologies, graph structures and analysis, and functional programming and homoiconicity (“data as code, code as data”) that my colleague, Fred Giasson, is now actively exploring. We will find that representational paradigms and the basis of how our tools and algorithms work will increasingly align. There appear to be natural underpinnings to these phenomena, including the pivot of language and meaning, that are closely aligned with the thoughts and writings of that great American pragmatist and logician, Charles S. Peirce. We will increasingly come to see that the wondrous innovations of self-driving cars, talking smartphones, warehouses of fulfillment robots, and computer vision systems can trace their roots back to basic truths of how to see and understand our world.

Understanding these forces will, themselves, help to formulate guidelines and ideas that can foster further innovation. So, in the end, while I still don’t like the term of “artificial” intelligence, it is merely a sign or a term. Adaptive innovations expressed by machines are simply part of the intelligence and structure embodied in the universe, for which we are now gaining the tools and understanding to exploit.


[1] Douglas AdamsHyperland is a great exposition on this vision, with my 2007 blog post pointing to the online video.
[2] Wikipedia maintains its own page of research that relies on Wikipedia; I have earlier captured about 250 selected sources called SWEETpedia that relate specifically to semantic technologies and AI.
[3] These are merely estimates, and likely quite wrong in many specifics. The estimates were compiled by reviewing a listing of Google acquisitions (since 2009), supplemented by individual company searches when the acquisition amounts were not listed, followed by analysis of Google’s SEC Edgar filings in a manner similar to this analysis (which was also used for the robotics estimate).
Posted:February 24, 2014

Smell the MoneyTo Combat a Decline in Mindshare, Follow What is Pragmatic

A secret of the semantic Web community is that energy, innovation and participation have slipped over, say, the past three or four years. This has been obvious for some time. I began collecting statistics on such things as prevalence in Google searches, attendance at SemTech or xSWC meetings, postings to user groups, blog postings, heck, even stupid and lengthy controversies on the mailing lists, or the sale and then sale and then sale of SemTech itself.

Fortunately, I realized that my observation of a decline did not depend on having documentary backup: the trend was obvious. So, I could stop collecting time-sucking statistics. I’m sure many of the participants in the formation of the semWeb know exactly of this decline in energy and focus of which I speak.

Other endeavors have kept me from worrying too much about such matters, but recent griping in public forums about the state of the semantic Web got me again thinking about premises and the state of semantic technologies. Such re-thinks are useful because they help put current circumstances into context, and because they help guide how to spot emerging opportunities.

While I am not feeling overwhelmingly passionate about such matters, there does appear to be a villain in this story, what I might term the FYN crowd [1]. But, like all good villains and stories, villainy is mostly a matter of context, with the winners being the ones writing the history. So, accept my thoughts as arising as much from my own worldview as from anything else . . . .

Galileo’s BallsGalileo's Balls

Once one embraces an intellectual domain with the premise of semantics, then meaning and context a priori become first citizens. Depending on viewpoint, what the semantic Web means to one individual can differ substantially from another individual. Moreover, the space becomes a sort of cipher for expressing any worldview, legitimately. For example, one tension at the heart of the semantic Web enterprise has been bottom up v top down; another has been anything goes v more structure and formalism. Hot buttons arise when worldviews differ, as they always surely do. The semantic Web is no exception.

Yet the stated bases for these semantic Web hot buttons, I would claim, are simplistic. What really occurs in the semantic technology space is something more akin to the Galileo thermometer, multiple viewpoints finding multiple resting points. Only in the semantic Web case, the natural resting points don’t just simply occur along a single dimension of, say, formalism, but other viewpoints as well. So, what we end up with is something more akin to a 3D- or multi-dimensional column. There are an infinite number of resting points in reasoned discourse.

Why should this be strange or threatening? Of course, upon inspection, it is not. The understanding that needs to arise is that semantics is truly about differences at all levels of human experience, perceptions and language. A pragmatic semantics must reflect this reality.

I don’t think that these sentiments will ever translate into precision or algorithms. But they can be modeled approximately with algorithms and refined with judgment. Much of their essence can also be captured by ontologies. These are viewpoints that can be captured in silico and used to help humans make better decisions. Semantics are essential to these prospects. At the heart of any pragmatic semantics must be an accommodation of viewpoints and terminology.

The real point in all of this — actually, also the major reason for semantic technologies in the first place — is that for any topic of normal human discourse there is a variety of viewpoints. Only a system expressly designed to respect these differences can be an effective digital means of interoperability.

Tribal Diversities

There are many tribes within the semantic technology space. Academic researchers are the most visible tribe. Because of funding nuances and general interest and tradition (though there are real differences between the US, Queen’s countries, EU or Asia), academics have — and sometimes continue to — set the tone for the semantic Web community. This has been useful to establish a coherent and (generally) logical basis to the underpinnings of the semantic Web. But most in the community would also acknowledge this basis is not sufficient to achieve commercial breakthrough.

In the US, there is a strange mix, with many semantic researchers flying below the radar, because they work for the three-letter intelligence agencies. Also, there is a very strong biomedical community, often funded from the National Library of Medicine. The biomedical community has been an exemplar innovator. Because of this community’s efforts, we now can see how an entire domain — biomedical — can develop and leverage ontologies, establish common vocabularies or standards, or cooperate on tools development. There is no public community more advanced in semantic techology developments than the biomedical one.

Another tribe in this space is the successful hunter, able to use semantic technology capabilities to attract and secure paying customers. Most of the activities of these tribe members is hidden from view, because their paying efforts are by nature infrastructural and concentrated on enterprise and commercial customers. But, also, many individuals within this tribe actively contribute to public efforts and conferences. Many of the more visible semantic technology companies, including my own, occupy this space.

But the most enriched tribe of the semantic Web has been the background semantic orchestrator, generally through infrastructure-based initiatives like broadscale knowledge representation, statistical analysis of massive text corpora, well-considered ontologies, or knowledge structures. The semantic efforts of the search engine vendors, including Bing and Google’s knowledge graph, are members of this tribe, as is Siri, now part of Apple.

These differences in market focus and visibility have tended to play out in expected ways. Academic researchers, Web enthusiasts and those committed to open data have been most vocal about “linked data”. They tend to be the more visible participants in semantic Web mailing lists and forums. Casual followers of the semantic technology space, or those new to it, mostly hear these same voices. By default, the apparent health and status of the semantic Web is more-or-less defined by these voices.

When I said in the intro that the semantic Web has slipped over the past few years, that perception is mostly the result of the lowered volume and fewer messages coming from the vocal tribe. But there are two problems with the accuracy resulting from that. The first, as argued above, is that the vocal and visible linked data advocates are not the only representatives of the community. And, the second, which I’ll get to in a moment, is that the vocal community’s prescriptions for the semantic Web, in my opinion, are no longer the most meaningful ones.

Branding, Terminology and Marketing Messages

Pig SnoutsMany early proponents of the semantic Web, I think it fair to observe, would say that two positioning mistakes (from their perspective) have kept the paradigm from grabbing greater hold. The first reason often cited is the use of XML as the initial syntax of RDF. At first blush, I agree with this observation, given that when I was first entering into the dark chambers of the semantic Web it was at times difficult to separate XML from RDF. Today, though, most semWeb practitioners prefer the use of alternative serializations. I personally don’t think that any difficulties that semantic Web understanding and adoption may pose today are any longer influenced by a decade-old XML confusion. In Web years, these are eons.

The second reason seems to have been the flat-out retreat from “semantic Web” terminology. The conscious decision to switch to the “linked data” branding began in earnest about 2008. I find this shift interesting. I think it relates to looking to the wrong measures of success. What seemed like a clever re-branding at that time has both set the focus in the wrong direction and consequently set the wrong targets for measuring success.

In the areas of standards and movements, moral authority, suasion and prominence often become the bases for who is viewed as “owning” a new concept. There has been much of this posturing around the “semantic Web” and “linked data”, with parry thrusts from “Web 3.0″ and “big data” and “open this or that”. So, I’m not surprised that branding many of the concepts of the semantic Web with a new term — “linked data” — was pushed and took hold. But why original semantic Web advocates adopted this term and its shift in focus from an ecosystem to data representation and exchange does surprise me.

The strange thing, in my opinion, is the monadic emphasis on “linked data” that acts to partially kill the semantic Web minding. Whether by design or fallout, “linked data” inexorably shifts the focus to how data is represented and transmitted. It is a royal pain in the ass for publishers to publish “linked data” and then, when done, there is surprisingly little consumption of it. The MusicBrainz announcement it was dropping RDFa last week is telliing [2]. We are seeing the representation of structured Web data being driven on other bases, as evidenced by the success of JSON, something that linked data enthusiasts have only lately come to embrace, and the schema.org initiative of the major search engines.

Once linked data was raised as the lead banner, other branding messages followed. The first add-on message was “follow-your-nose”. FYN represents clcking from link to link following data references of interest on the Web [1]. In order for that be facilitated, but also as a means to clear up some confusions about linked data, the quality standard of “5-star linked data” was also put forth. To achieve all five stars, linked data should conform to open standards such as RDF and link to other data for context [3].

Today, on virtually all “official” semantic Web forums you will see mention of the brands of linked data, FYN, 5-star linked data, and open data. Publishing of data according to best practices that enables global links from datum to datum across the Giant Global Graph has become the sort of gold standard associated with this new branding.

What is the Measure of Success?

Success is always measured against our premises and values. In the case of the vocal tribe, the premises and values relate to linked and open data. By these measures, the semantic Web is a mixed bag. On the positive front, many laudable sources of quality data — most recently the Getty Museum [4], but also the Library of Congress and arts and humanities publishers across Europe, but also including many science realms beyond biology, and of course hundreds of others made famous by the LOD cloud [5]  — are published as linked data. or in the process being so. Open data sets are coming from government at all levels [6].

On the negative front, the growth of pubished linked data has fallen behind the pace of publishing structured data in general, and notable evidence for where the consumption of linked data has made a difference is pretty hard to find. Linked data advocates only rarely discuss integration with “closed”, proprietary data or enterprise use, integration and realities. Shitty sameAs assertions abound everywhere. Markets find it hard to get excited when the arguments and reference frameworks don’t relate well to their actual problems and pain points. DBpedia can only go so far, and a mountain of links to it without relevance, context or quality is just so much more noise [7].

The point here is not to mount a screed against linked data, but to caution: Be careful how you brand yourself. By the measures of growth and penetration and uptake of linked data, moreover linked open data, the semantic Web space is generally not attracting developer interest, media attention or venture dollars. I hope the release of meaningful linked data continues, but setting that goal as the measure of the semantic Web’s success is selling the wrong product.

Rather than setting a FYN objective as to whether our semantic technology efforts to date have been a success, I suggest we adopt a “follow the money” (FT$) premise. Who is investing or making money off of this stuff, and how and why? Herein lies a different measure of success.Money River

If we look to the approaches taken by those making money in this market, we find that the:

  • Challenges of meaningful connections
  • Interoperability
  • Integration across document and structured data
  • Discovering new patterns and relationships
  • Facilitating semantic understanding across disparate communities and legacy data sources, and
  • Providing quality characteristics for new entities,

are where the bucks are being made. These activities are all at the heart of the knowledge worker’s job responsibilities. Even the earliest advocates of the semantic Web must have had aspirations that the semantic Web had the promise to address these meaningful challenges.

Another secret to systems like Freebase, Google knowledge graph, Bing, Watson, Siri, or similar innovations is their use and reliance on Wikipedia, at least in their formative stages. Though often DBpedia was the structural form of ingest, the core basis of these systems’ capabilities comes from content — Wikipedia — the access to which was only made easier via DBpedia.

The sentiment to follow the money is not a sell out or a political statement. It is a recognition that work worth doing is work others appreciate and are willing to pay for. It is the best signal amidst the noise of what is valuable to work on.

It’s Time for the Side B Hit

I’ve been a fairly active participant in the semantic Web for nearly 10 years. I sometimes have the image of an aspiring music artist from the ’50s or ’60s arguing with the record execs which song should be the favored Side A cut on the 45. The visible voices of the semantic Web want to push FYN and linked data as Side A, but it really isn’t selling, according to the advocates’ own success measures.

The Side B of interoperability, RDF and OWL is not just “filler” to the main promotion, but where I clearly think the hit resides. Some have heard that track, buy it, and are enthused about it. It would be nice if the record execs could see what is right before their face and begin promoting it as well.

FYN and its vocal proponents risk the perception of failure of the semantic Web enterprise from the simple fact of putting linked data front and center. Sure, it is a good approach with potentially rich information so long as you can trust the source both for the content itself and the quality of its RDF expression. No one is arguing with that.

But SGML and ASN.1, one could argue, in similar veins, amongst actually dozens of others, were great and useful notations, yet are now mostly historical footnotes. If a trusted source is going to serve me up 5-star linked data, I will take it. Yet the truth is I would take structured data in any form from a trusted source, but take no linked data from an unknown source or one with poor linkages. We spend much time looking at these issues for our clients, and it is the rare linked data set that becomes part of our solution. Even then, we carefully scrutinize all assumed connections.

The Side B semantic Web of vetted and interlinked, interoperable data organized by competent graphs is the winning side. It is the only location where true economic transactions are taking place around the semantic Web. To understand where the semantic Web makes sense, follow the Side B money to your answers.

The insight gained from a FT$ approach clearly points to the failure of FYN. I say, do linked data if you can, it is the best ingest format around. But don’t get too hung up on that. Spend your time figuring out how to bridge meaningful gaps in semantics or data across any enterprise, global or local. Information is not truffles, and following your nose is not the primary argument for the semantic Web.

[1] FYN. or Follow Your Nose, reflects is the general practice of performing web retrieval on URIs in a knowledge base to obtain more knowledge. Two W3C articles provide additional commentary. In the linked data context, FYN represents clcking from link to link following data references of interest. FYN is a specific pattern of linked data. Ed Summers provided one of the better overviews of the use of FYN in the context of linked data and the Web of Data.
[2] See the MusicBrainz blog from February 18, 2014.
[3] Tim Berners-Lee describes 5-star linked open data in this article.
[4] The Getty Museum recently made a portion of its Arts and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) open source using linked data; see http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/art-architecture-thesaurus-now-available-as-linked-open-data/.
[5] The linked open data (LOD) cloud diagram and supporting information is maintained at http://lod-cloud.net/.
[6] I have often written on the problems with linked and open data as presently practiced. See Practical P-P-P-Problems with Linked Data (October 4, 2010) and The Nature of Connectedness on the Web (November 22, 2010) as two examples. Specific commentary on open data in government is provided in When Linked Data Rules Fail (November 16, 2009).
[7] For another assessment of the state of the semantic Web, see Brian Sletten’s recent Keep On Keeping On article on semanticweb.com (January 13, 2014).
Posted:May 21, 2013

Neighbourhoods of Winnipeg - NOWFirst and Largest Local Government Site to Exclusively Embrace Semantic Technologies

The City of Winnipeg, the capital and largest city of Manitoba, Canada, just released its “NOW” portal celebrating its diverse and historical 236 neighborhoods. The NOW portal is one of the largest releases of open data by a local government to date, with some 57 varied datasets now available ranging from local neighborhood amenities such as pools and recreation centers, to detailed real estate and economic development information. Nearly one-half million individual Web pages comprise the site, driven exclusively by semantic technologies. Nearly 10 million RDF triples underly the site.

In announcing the site, Winnipeg Mayor Sam Katz said, “We want to attract new investment to the city and, at the same time, ensure that Winnipeg remains healthy and viable for existing businesses to thrive and grow.” He added, “The new web portal, Neighbourhoods of Winnipeg—or NOW—is one way that we are making it easy to do business within the City of Winnipeg.”

NOW provides a single point of access for information such as location of schools and libraries, Census and demographic information, historical data and mapping information. A new Economic Development feature included in the portal was developed in partnership with Economic Development Winnipeg Inc. (EDW) and Winnipeg REALTORS®.

Our company, Structured Dynamics, was the lead contractor for the effort. An intro to the technical details powering the Winnipeg site is provided in the complementary blog post by SD’s chief technologist, Fred Giasson. These intro announcements by SD will be later followed by more detailed discussions on relevant NOW portal topics in the coming weeks.

Background and Formal Release

But the NOW story is really one of municipal innovation and a demonstration of what a staff of city employees can accomplish when given the right tools and frameworks. SD’s real pleasure over the past two years of development and data conversion for this site has been our role as consultants and advisors as the City itself converted the data and worked the tools. The City of Winnipeg NOW (Neighbourhoods of Winnipeg) site is testament to the ability of semantic technologies to be learned and effectively used and deployed by subject matter professionals from any venue.

In announcing the site on May 13, Mayor Sam Katz also released a short four-minute introductory video about the site:

What we find most exciting about this site is how our open source Open Semantic Framework can be adopted to cutting-edge municipal open data and community-oriented portals. Without any semantic technology background at the start of the project, the City has demonstrated its ability to manage, master and then tailor the OSF framework to its specific purposes.

Key Emphases

As its name implies, the entire thrust of the Winnipeg portal is on its varied and historical neighborhoods. The NOW portal itself is divided into seven major site sections with 2,245 static pages and a further 425,000 record-oriented pages. The number of dynamic pages that may be generated from the site given various filtering or slicing-and-dicing choices is essentially infinite.

Neighborhoods

The fulcrum around which all data is organized on the NOW portal are the 236 neighborhoods within the City of Winnipeg, organized into 14 community areas, 15 political wards, and 23 neighborhood clusters. These neighborhood references link to thousands of City of Winnipeg and external sites, as well as have many descriptive pages of their own.

Some 57 different datasets contribute the information to the site, some authored specifically for the NOW portal with others migrated from legacy City databases. Coverage ranges from parks, schools, recreational and sports facilities, and zoning, to libraries, bus routes, police stations, day care facilities, community gardens and more. More than 1,400 attributes characterize this data, all of which may be used for filtering or slicing the data.

Property and Economic Development

A key aspect of the site is its real estate, assessment and zoning information. Every address and parcel in the city — a count nearing 190,000 in the current portal — may be looked up and related to its local and neighborhood amenities. Up to three areas of the City may be mapped and compared to one another, felt to be a useful tool for screening economic development potentials.

Census Data

All of the neighborhood and neighborhood clusters may be investigated and compared for Census data in two time periods (2001 and 2006). Types of Census informaton includes population, education, labor and work, transportation, education, languages, income, minorities and immigration, religion, marital status, and other family and household measures.

Any and all neighborhoods may be compared to one another on any or all of these measures, with results available in chart, table or export form.

Images and History

Images and history pages are provided for each Winnipeg neighborhood.

Mapping

Throughout, there are rich mapping options that can be sliced and displayed on any of these dimensions of locality or type of information or attribute.

More to Come!

The basic dataset authoring framework will enable City staff (and, perhaps, external parties or citizens) to add additional datasets to the portal over time.

Key Functionality and Statistics

The NOW site is rich in functionality and display and visualization options. Some of this functionality includes the:

NOW Ontology Graph

NOW Graph Structure

NOW is entirely an ontology-driven site, with both domain and administrative ontologies guiding all aspects of search, retrieval and organization. There are 12 domain ontologies govering the site, two of which are specific to NOW (the NOW ontology and a Canadian Census ontology). Ten external ontologies (such as FOAF, GeoNames, etc) are also used.

The NOW ontology, shown to the left, has more than 2500 subject concepts within it covering all aspects of municipal governance and specific Winnipeg factors.

Relation Browser

All of the 2500 linked concepts in the NOW ontology graph can be interactively explored and navigated via the relation browser. The central “bubble” also presents related, linked information such as images, Census data, descriptive material and the like. As adjacent “bubbles” are clicked, the user can navigate or “swim through” the NOW graph.

NOW Relation Browser

NOW Web Maps

Web Map

Nearly all of the information on the NOW site — or about 420,000 records — contains geolocational information of one form or another. There are about 200,000 points of interest records, another 200,000 area or polygon records, and about 7,000 paths and routes such as bus routes in the system.

All 190,000 property addresses in Winnipeg may be looked up and mapped.

Virtually all of the 57 datasets in the system may be filtered by category or type or attribute. This information can be filtered or searched using about 1400 different facets, singly or in combination with one another.

Various map perspectives are provided from facilities (schools, parks, etc.) to economic development and history, transportation routes and bus stops, and property, real estate and zoning records.

Templates

Depending on the type of object at hand, one of more than 50 templates may be invoked to govern the display of its record information. These templates are selected contextually from the ontology and present different layouts of map, image, record attribute or other information, all keyed by the governing type.

Each template is thus geared to present relevant information for the type of object at hand, in a layout specific to that object.

Objects lacking their own specific templates default to the display type of their parent or grandparent objects such that no object type lacks a display format.

Multiple templates are displayed on search pages, depending upon the diversity of object types returned by the given search.

Example of a NOW Record Template

Example of a NOW Census Chart

Graph Statistics

The NOW site provides a rich set of Census statistics by neighborhood or community area for comparison purposes. The nearly half million data points may be compared between neighborhoods (make sure and pick more than one) in graph form (shown) or in tabular form (not shown).

Census information spans from demographics and income to health, schooling and other measures of community well-being.

Like all other displays, the selected results can also be exported as open data (see below).

Image Gallery

The NOW portal presently has about 2700 images on site organized by object type, neighborhood, and historical. These images are contextually available in multiple locations throughout the site.

The History topic section also matches these images to historical neighborhood narratives.

Example of a NOW Image Gallery

Example conStruct Tool: structOntology

conStruct Tools

A series of twenty or so back office tools are available to City of Winnipeg staff to grow, manage and otherwise maintain the portal. Some of these tools are exposed in read-only form to the general public (see Geeky Tools next).

The example at left is the structOntology tool for managing the various ontologies on the site.

Geeky Tools

As a means to show what happens behind the scenes, the Geeky Tools section presents a number of the back office tools in read-only form. These are also good ways to see the semantic technologies in action.

The Geeky Tools section provides access to Search, Browse, Ontology, and Export (see next) tools.

NOW's Geeky Tools

The NOW Export Function

Open Data Exports

On virtually any display or after any filter selection, there is an “export” button that allows the active data to be exported in a variety of formats. Under Geeky Tools it is also possible to export whole datasets or slices of them. Some of the key formats include:

Some of these are serializations that are not standard ones for RDF, but follow a notation that retains the unique RDF aspects.

Some Early Lessons

Though the technical aspects of the NOW site have been ready for quite some time, with limited staff and budget it took City staff some time to convert all of its starting datasets and to learn how to develop and manage the site on its own. As a result, some of the design decisions made a couple of years back now appear a bit dated.

For example, the host content management system is Drupal 6, though Drupal 8 is getting close to its own release. Similarly, some of the display widgets are based on Flash, which Adobe announced last year it will continue to maintain, but will no longer develop. In the two years since design decisions were originally made, the importance of mobile apps and smartphones and tablets has also grown tremendously in importance.

These kinds of upgrades are a constant in the technology world, and apply to NOW as well. Fortunately, the underlying basis of the entire portal in its data and stack were architected to enable eventual upgrades.

Another key aspect of the site will be the degree to which external parties contribute additional data. It would be nice, for example, to see the site incorporate events announcements and non-City information on commercial and non-profit services and facilities.

Conclusion

Structured Dynamics is proud about the suitability of our OSF technology stack and is impressed with all the data that is being exposed. Our informal surveys suggest this is the largest open data portal by a major city worldwide to be released to date. It is certainly the first to be powered exclusively by semantic technologies.

Yet, despite those impressive claims, we submit that the real achievement of this project is something different. The fact that this entire portal is fully maintained and operated by the City’s own internal IT staff is a game changer. The IT staff of the City of Winnipeg had no prior internal semantic Web knowledge, nor any knowledge in RDF, OWL or any other underlying technologies used by the portal. What they had is a vision of their project and what they wanted. They placed significant faith and made a commitment to master the OSF technology stack, and the underlying semantic Web concepts and principles to make their vision a reality. Much of SD’s 430+ documents on the OSF TechWiki are a result of this collaborative technology transfer between us and the City.

We are truly grateful that the City of Winnipeg has taken open source and open data quite seriously. In our partnership wth them they have been extremely supportive of what we have done to progress the technology, release it as open source, and then to document our lessons and experiences for other parties to utilize as documented on the TechWiki. The City of Winnipeg truly shows enlightened government at its best. Thank you, especially to our project managers, Kelly Goldstrand and Don Conolly.

Structured Dynamics has long stated its philosophy as, “We are successful when we are no longer needed. We’re extremely pleased and proud that the NOW portal and the City of Winnipeg show this objective is within realistic reach.