Big Blue and Nano-Medicine Show Finding Functionality
April 16, 2011
Invigorated by a win on Jeopardy, IBM is now tackling nanomedicine.
What? Don’t these two disciplines seem related? A TV game show and nanomedicine with a built in finding function.
IBM’s recent breakthroughs in nanotechnology address a pressing problem: antibiotic- resistant pathogens. The advance is documented in Bloomberg’s “IBM’s Tiny Technology Rips Up Drug-Resistant Germ Cells in Early Research” and VentureBeat’s “IBM Researchers Create Nanomedicine to Kill bacteria where antibiotics fail.”
IBM, along with medical experts at the Institute of Bioengineering and Nanotechnology in Singapore, hope to give society a useful tool with “finding” and “targeting” functions. Their product, currently in a very early stage, will address two problems with antibiotics: bacterial adaptation and red blood cell destruction.
Antibiotics target DNA to keep bacteria from reproducing. They often leave survivors which develop a resistance to the drug. The biodegradable plastic nano particles are much more direct: they smash through bacterial cell walls. There’s no adapting to that.
The polymers that make up these particles are able to find and identify electrostatic ally their victims and destroy them without harming our cells.
About the process that is making this advance possible, VentureBeat reports:
[IBM researcher James] Hedrick said that decades of learning about chip materials has helped the team, which has worked on the problem at least five years, to figure out how to craft nano structures that can be injected directly into the body or applied to the skin.
All Jeopardy comments aside, we look forward to following the teams’ progress and, of course, IBM’s pulling together its various “finding” innovations into one coherent strategy. Does IBM look a lot like the pre break up Bell Labs or the Xerox PARC with many different research initiatives that may never find commercial success within the corporate environment? That’s a question for Watson or Lucene, depending on how one frames the question.
Cynthia Murrell April 16, 2011
Freebie
New CTO at InQuira
April 16, 2011
Updated: April 18, 2011, 7 10 pm Eastern
The story “InQuira Promotes Nav Chakravarti to Chief Technology Officer” tells us that InQuira is making changes within its organization. InQuira is a leading company of enterprise knowledge applications for multi-channeled customer support, social CRM, and sales enablement. Nav Chakravarti was the former vice president of solutions and his promotion to chief technology officer ushers in a new period of technology development for customers and sales.
With Chakravarti as the new CTO, InQuira hopes to helm the way for future innovations in multi-channel user support and as a Knowledge Management (KM) provider. Chakravarti has this to say about his new role,
I’ve had the privilege of engaging with our customers and partners to create, architect and deliver new applications that maximize business value based on our unique product capabilities. This perspective and experience will allow me to guide our product strategy so that we maintain our leadership position. I’m very excited about our future and am looking forward to increasing the depth and breadth of our solutions and product portfolio, and to ultimately broadening InQuira’s strategic market footprint.
InQuira is preparing for some hefty changes and hopefully an even brighter future for their company. There has been a flurry of changes in search and content processing companies in the last three months. Will the new captains of these software ships navigate the choppy waters of today’s business successfully? We hope so.
Whitney Grace, April 16, 2011
Freebie
The Semantic Web as it Stands
April 16, 2011
Semantic search for the enterprise is here, but the semantic web remains the elusive holy grail. “Semantic Web: Tools you can use” gives an overview of the existing state of semantic technology and what is needed to get it off the ground as a true semantic web technology.
Tim Berners-Lee was the first one to articulate what the semantic web would be like, and his vision of federated search is still sorely missing from reality. Federated search searches several disparate resources simultaneously (like when you search several different library databases at once). Windows 7 supports federated search, but it is still not common throughout the web. The W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) has developed standards to support semantic web infrastructure, including SPARQL, RDF, and OWL, and Google, Yahoo and Bing are starting to use semantic metadata and support W3C standards like RDF.
Semantic software is able to analyze and describe the meaning of data objects and their inter-relationships, while resolving language ambiguities such as homonyms or synonyms, as long as standards are followed. This has practical applications with things like shopping comparisons. If standards are followed and semantic metadata provided by the merchants themselves, online shoppers can compare products without all the inaccuracies and out-of-date information currently plaguing third-party shopping comparison sites.
There are some tools, platforms, prewritten components, and services currently available to make semantic deployment easier and somewhat less expensive. Jena is an open-source Java framework for building semantic Web applications, and Sesame, is an open-source framework for storing, inferencing and querying RDF data. Lexalytics produces a semantic platform that contains general ontologies that can then be fine-tuned by service provider partners for specific business domains and applications. Revelytix sells a knowledge-modeling tool called Knoodl.com, a wiki-based framework that helps a wide variety of types of users to collaboratively develop a semantic vocabulary for domain-specific information residing on different web sites. Sinequa’s semantic platform, Context Engine, provides semantic infrastructure that includes a generic semantic dictionary that can translate between various languages and can also be customized with business-specific terms. Thomson Reuters provides Machine Readable News which collects and analyzes analyzes and scores online news for sentiment (public opinion), relevance, and novelty and OpenCalais, which creates open metadata for submitted content.
Despite all these advances for the use of the semantic web in the enterprise, general, widespread use of the semantic web remains elusive, and no one can predict exactly when that will change:
“In a 2010 Pew Research survey of about 895 semantic technology experts and stakeholders, 47% of the respondents agreed that Berners-Lee’s vision of a semantic Web won’t be realized or make a significant difference to end users by the year 2020. On the other hand, 41% of those polled predicted that it would. The remainder did not answer that query.”
Semantic technology for the enterprise is not only here today, but is growing by about 20% a year according to IDC. That kind of semantic technology is a much smaller beast to tame. When it comes to the World Wide Wide, there is still not widespread support of W3C standards and common vocabularies, which is why more people said no than yes in the survey mentioned above. Generalized web searches are difficult because each site has its own largely proprietary ontology instead of a shared and open taxonomy.
Sometimes even within an enterprise it is difficult to overcome differences in different sectors of the same business.
However, certain industries are starting to come under pressure from customers or industry and have responded by creating standardized ontologies. GoodRelations is one such e-commerce ontology used by eBestBuy.com, Overstock.com, and Google. This kind of technique has not become widespread because of the costs and slow payoff involved. This is a catch-22 where businesses don’t want to jump on the bandwagon because there is not a critical mass yet, but the real benefits won’t start until there is a large number of businesses participating. Things like product categories are often unique to a business and getting some kind of universal standardization is akin to a nightmare, but there still needs to be consensus on using some type of W3C standards of categorization to satisfy customers. And, with more an more bogus information proliferating on the web, semantics become not only convenient, but essential for finding the right information.
I think the fundamental question that this article leaves us with is whether or not we have the standards we need or whether the current standards are the stepping off point to something new. SGML was fine in its day, but it didn’t get very far. HTML cherrypicked some of the basic ideas of SGML and added linking and the World Wide Web was born. Now HTML 5 is re-introducing some of the ideas of SGML that were lost. Maybe HTML can continue to evolve, or maybe someone will cherrypick its best ideas and create something (almost) entirely new. Another issue is all the work that it takes to create all the metadata, no matter what the standards. Flickr and Facebook have made user tagging into a fun activity, but for the semantic web to really function, machines need to do do most of the work. Will this all be figured out by 2020? Survey says no, but who knows?
Alice Wasielewski
April 16, 2011
Google and Microsoft Security Poker: A New Round
April 15, 2011
I ignored the push backs, reinterpretations, and revelations about the murkiness of both Google’s and Microsoft’s security certifications. I was hoping the “security card” story would die a quiet death as the pundits chased the resurgence of RIM with its co-dependent tablet or the Google financial results.
No such luck.
Navigate to “Google Lashes Back at Microsoft over Accusations of Lying.” The story introduces for me a couple of interesting elements. First, this passage sets the tone of the “security card” discussion:
Google said Wednesday it does have FISMA certification from the General Services Administration. FISMA stands for Federal Information Security Management Act. Microsoft said Monday that certification for one agency, the GSA, does not automatically qualify software for another agency, the Department of the Interior. The Department of the Interior had earlier chosen Microsoft’s cloud software over Google. Google sued, claiming the department had not fairly considered its bid, and successfully forced the department to re-evaluate its purchase.
What’s nifty about this approach is that it puts the “debate” in the 10 point font used for government documents. Who really knows what’s inside these “rules of the road”. Agency policies, the role of the General Services Administration, and the notion of duplication of effort within the government may indicate that both Google and Microsoft are on a 50-50 basis.
The other point is the reminder that Google sued a Federal agency. Now, I don’t know about you, but that’s an opportunity for consultants to attend quite a few meetings.
Second, my view is that the “security card” is a potentially corrosive issue within the US government. Calling attention to the idiosyncrasies of how certain security certifications “work” is something that I would keep as part of specific project discussions and out of news releases, blog posts, and other modern conduits.
Stephen E Arnold, April 15, 2011
Freebie
Twitter Firehose News
April 15, 2011
There is a tweak to the Witter and Mediasift partnership. You can read about it in the DataSift write up “Twitter Partnership”.
Mediasift and Twitter have agreed to a partnership that has the potential to change how marketers and companies understand conversations about their products as well as how they choose to market them to target audiences. By utilizing the advanced DataSift software they are able to break down “tweets” into a language that is easily understandable and searchable and is still quite cost effective with it’s “pay per use” subscription. The article said:
As a company we have been very fortunate to have access to the Twitter Firehose for quite some time. This has enabled us over the past two years to refine our thinking, leading to the incarnation of DataSift.
DataSift compiles multiple social media feeds and additional data sets to create a common abstract layer which provides meaningful insight into much of the chaotic and unstructured data from the outlets. It took nearly 18 months to complete the DataSift platform but it has already seen a huge outpouring of company and marketing support with more than a billion requests per month.
Important stuff for the real time crowd.
Leslie Radcliff, April 15, 2011
Freebie
Android Less Open than Facebook?
April 15, 2011
I have been thinking about Google and openness since I learned that Facebook is “opening” its data centers. Suddenly Google looks a lot less open than Facebook.
ZDNet’s “Taking Back Android: Should Google Be Controlling the Ecosystem?” raises an interesting question. The article actually questions Google’s commitment to openness.
Google, the worlds search engine, can’t seem to stay out of the media spotlight these days. This time though, the controversy does not stem from the inadvertent disclosure of personal information. Now Google seems to be tightening grip on applications that utilize Android. According to Bloomberg, Google is no longer allowing Android to freely form partnerships or customize software without it’s approval. Kind of like the “big brother” approach to doing business.
This need for consent before creation is directly in opposition of Google’s pledge to the truly open mobile OS they claimed to support and is being compared to Apple, with it’s control of iOS. Though in all fairness, the Android ecosystem has become a tad unruly. Its multiple device makers and many carriers have caused a bit of chaos and confusion and in some cases compromised user experience. For Google it seems to be about quality over quantity which wouldn’t be so awful except that Google doesn’t actually sell a product, the telecoms companies sell the product, Google simply provides the platform.
This leaves us with a couple of questions. Just how much of a role and responsibility should Google be shouldering in all of this and why don’t telecoms create their own platforms? And Facebook’s open data center angle makes Google look less open and slightly clumsy, doesn’t it?
Leslie Radcliffe, April 15, 2011
Libraries Embrace Semantics
April 15, 2011
We came across a quite interesting article about semantics in the library market.
The world has become very dependent on search engine sites such as Google but programs such as this offer very limited results. According to Semanticweb.com “Semantics in the Public Library” introducing semantic Web technology into public libraries can help to bridge the information gap and build a new and better web. The article said:
“The worldwide web is very vocabulary dependent. Today’s Web search engines do not group web pages, pull out concepts, or understand them. There is no access to the deep Web.
Though Google produces seemingly an unlimited number of results it leaves the job half done. The semantic web can do more with the information and handle more complex databases as well as produce more structured results. Scopus is a semantic web search engine configured to handle a variety of complex queries and produce structured and easy to understand results. Semantics though it seems like the perfect technology is not yet a perfect science and implementing the new technology is definitely easier said then done.
April Holmes, April 15, 2011
Freebie
Euro Lecture: Domains and Boundaries in Digital Information
April 15, 2011
I keep getting letters from various government officials asking for my write up of a public lecture I gave in Spain about a year ago. I email and I then get snail mail letters explaining that my document did not arrive. I think the lecture will be accessible worldwide if I reproduce the text with only some redaction and updating in this blog. Herewith is another version of my formal presentation and analysis of informations domains which collide, morph, and evolve. The key point is that by “jumping up a level” even established leaders find that the boundaries have changed. In math, one goes from a simple 1 + 1 problem to an n-space problem. If you disagree with me as much as some conference organizers, use the comments section of this Web log. Don’t send me snail mail or an email. Like some government entities, I don’t receive this type of communication. Brave new world and all that.
When Domains Collide, Boundaries Shift
In the ancient world, crossing a frontier triggered mixed emotions. Fear of the unknown or the threat of brigands outlined some voyagers’ experience. There was excitement, evoked because of real or imagined adventures in crossing boundaries. Leaving the familiar world of one’s home for a vacation in another country can, for some, heighten one’s senses, and stimulate the appetite for adventure. The question becomes, “Where are you?” Look at the figure in the box. No room to move. Look at the figure in a hypercube? Movement is possible. Which is the reality of digital information?
In a box and trapped? Or, room to move?
![clip_image002[30]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/clip_image00230.jpg "clip_image002[30]")
Perception and defining boundaries becomes more important than ever before.
Boundaries: Real or Imagined?
Those engaged in the information industries today are also trying to cope with boundaries. Few of these feature hard lines of demarcation. When Caesar crossed the Rubicon, the symbolic action committed him to a course of action that rippled through the ruling elite of Rome. Entrepreneurs like Richard Rosenblatt, certainly no Julius Caesar, crossed from the land of MySpace.com into content production. His approach tapped individuals, often with little or no formal journalistic training, to create content. Thousands upon thousands of articles flowed from Demand Media into the firm’s Web sites and on to his clients’ Web sites. Though ignored by the “real” publishing community, Demand Media is poised for an initial public offering, introducing consulting services delivered by individuals who are not “real” consultants, and generating millions of clicks from Web sites like eHow.com and Cracked.com. Demand Media now is contemplating additional services which are similar to those offered by professional publishing companies and consulting firms. When I briefed a publishing company earlier this year, I mentioned Demand Media. I asked who was familiar with the firm. No one in attendance knew much about the company.
The issue of crossing a border, more specifically, the space between something well-known and something not-so-well-known is the focus of this essay. Of particular interest is the intersection of two different domains. Thinking broader than a college student taking her first trip to Paris, I want to explore what happens when digital spaces bump together. The boundaries of these intersections are in my opinion ripe with opportunities.
To give the inquiry some handholds, I will discuss the domains of traditional information and non-traditional production. In some ways, there is a significant financial stake in the boundary between these two domains. Each has its leaders and foot soldiers. Each has a method of working. Each has a mission. Each has a business model or models. What makes the intersection worthy of comment is that the collision of the traditional and non-traditional information worlds an important pivot point.
In the traditional versus non-traditional confrontations, I am not certain which “side” will win. Maybe neither will triumph? The costs of the collision may be so high that both sides fall, spent from the battle. Let’s look at an example of domains in collision.
Before World War One, transportation was expensive. For most Americans and Europeans, horses and mules were the Chevrolets and Hondas of the era. By the end of World War One, automobiles captured the fancy of the public. With that shift, MBAs learned that buggy whip manufacturers should have been able to manufacture seat covers for the horseless carriage. According to business school lore, the bright and agile would thrive. The proprietors who did not adapt had to find their future elsewhere. Sounds good, doesn’t it? Much of the US MBA cant has a similar lilt. The financial improprieties and the gasping economy make many aware of the shortcomings of MBA thinking. The domain of traditional financial conservatism died under the Hummmers driven by the top man at Bear Stearns or by the dare devil Bernie Madoff.
The point is that when domains collide—whether horses and automobiles or business methods based on trust with more facile and fluid approaches—unexpected consequences occur. The boundary at the intersection of domains that collide is one of uncertainty, opportunity, and risk. Winners and losers often look at their fate and wonder, “What happened?”
![clip_image002[6]](http://arnoldit.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/clip_image0026.jpg "clip_image002[6]") |
| Demand Media has been a winner. Let me use financial payout as a yard stick. Business Week magazine was the American version of the highly regarded Economist. Bloomberg purchased Business Week for about $5 million. Associated Content, an information factory similar to Demand Media, sold to Yahoo for 15, maybe 18 times more than Business Week. That works about to $90 million versus $5 million. Associated Content and Demand Media produce bulk content for online consumption. If I measure quality in terms of dollars, is Business Week is a lower-value product when viewed in economic terms? Is the reasoned and sonorous writing of Business Week less successful than the crunchy, semi-professional outputs from hundreds of anonymous writers. The lesson from this transaction does not require a sleek, sharp-pencil MBA to explain. |
Protected: Wave a Taxonomy WAND for SharePoint Improvement
April 15, 2011
Public Google and the Analysts
April 14, 2011
Short honk: I don’t want to start covering financial information. We have a new blog coming, sponsored for sure, and it will dig into financial angles for investors. Irreverent? Sure. Newsy? Nah, we are going to identify important stories and offer some comments about what was scintillating and what was more of a black hole.
However, we have to say that we read “Google’s First Quarter Earnings Miss Projections as Expenses Spike; Page Makes Brief Appearance.” Not much to say because this is a good search engine optimized headline.
What we want to do is point out that the new Google CEO has to beat analyst estimates, projections, pixie dust, whatever. What happens if the Google cannot pump up revenues and generate the profits as in days of yore? Good question. Let’s do a 1950s’ style Iowa Test. (Anyone remember those?)
Here’s the question. Select the best answer.
What happens if the CEO of a publicly traded company does not meet or beat analysts’ earnings estimates?
[a] Wall Street shrugs its shoulders and says, “Hey, no problemo. Thanks for the nifty coffee mug.”
[b] The investment outfits ignore the misstep and go home before the market closes.
[c] Major shareholders ignore legal challenges, the misunderstanding with the world’s largest market, and rising expenses because the magic ad machine is unbreakable.
[d] The CFAs want the company to change or socially-inclined MBAs and art history majors with CFA certification will become feisty.
Maybe none of the above?
Stephen E Arnold, April 15, 2011
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
