Protected: Double Happiness: SharePoint 2007 and 201 Together
July 29, 2011
Oracle Snaps Up InQuira
July 29, 2011
We learned from a source in Silicon Valley that Oracle has acquired InQuira. We noted “Oracle Buys InQuira to Boost Fusion CRM”. InQuira is an interesting search company. The firm was formed in 2002 from two semi successful search companies, Answerfriend Inc. and Electric Knowledge Inc. The company hit its stride with its positioning of “natural language search” for customer support applications. InQuira hit my radar screen when it signed a deal with Yahoo to power the Yahoo customer support service. I wrote about the upside and downside of the Yahoo implementation and then looked at InQuira every few months. You can run a query in Beyond Search and get a list of the articles I wrote to track the company’s activities since 2008. InQuira has been able to move forward despite the lemmings of search rushing into the customer service market.
According to the IDG News write up:
The company has patented NLP (natural language processing) capabilities that enable it to determine the “true intent” of a customer question, according to its website. “We expect InQuira to be the centerpiece for Oracle Fusion CRM Service,” said Anthony Lye, senior vice president of Oracle CRM, in a statement.
Our view at Beyond Search is that buying InQuira is probably a reasonable move for Oracle. The company’s Secure Enterprise Search 11g is not suited for the Fusion type of application. Oracle purchased Triple Hop, but I have lost track of that firm’s Match Point innovation within the giantness of Oracle.
Will InQuira propel Oracle forward in enterprise search in its various manifestations? My hunch is that Oracle will generate additional revenue and put pressure on the incumbents in the customer support market. Oracle may need to acquire additional search and content processing companies in order to meet the needs of the big and diverse Oracle customer base. InQuira’s approach often requires significant computational horsepower. Oracle is positioned to sell InQuira’s customers the hardware required to deliver zippy performance.
We think the notion of a giant company building a “knowledge management” solution is sort of interesting. Big companies have to buy other companies to move forward. That’s why we think Oracle may still be shopping for search and content management solutions.
Stephen E Arnold, July 29, 2011
Freebie unlike products from Oracle and InQuira.
Make Metadata Useful. But What If the Tags Are Lousy?
July 28, 2011
I must be too old and too dense to understand why the noise about metadata gives me a headache. I came across a post or story on the CNBC.com Web site that was half way between a commercial and a rough draft of a automated indexing vendor’s temp file stuffed with drafts created by a clever intern. The post hauled around this weighty title: “EMA and ASG Webinar: 7 Best Practices For Making Metadata Useful”. The first thing I did was look up EMA and ASG because I was unfamiliar with the acronyms.
I learned that EMA represents a firm called Enterprise Management Associates. The company does information technology and data management research, industry analysis, and consulting. Fair enough. I have done some of the fuzzy wuzzy work for a couple of reasonably competent outfits, including the once stellar Booz, Allen & Hamilton and a handful of large, allegedly successful companies.
ASG is an acronym for ASG Software Solutions. The parent company grows via acquisitions just like Progress Software and, more recently, Google. The focus of the company seems to be “the cloud in your hand.” I am okay with a metaphorical description.
I am confused about metadata. Source: http://www.thebusyfool.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Decisions_clipart.jpg
What caught my attention is the focus on metadata, which in my little world, is the domain of people with degrees in library and information science, years of experience in building ANSI standard controlled term lists, and hands on time with automated and human centric indexing, content processing, and related systems. An ANSI standard controlled term list is not management research, industry analysis, consulting, or the “cloud in your hand.” Controlled term lists which make life bearable for a person seeking information are quite difficult work, combining the vision of an architect and the nitty gritty stamina of a Roman legionnaire building a road through Gaul.
Here’s the passage that caught my attention and earned a place in my “quotes to note” folder:
As data grows horizontally across the enterprise, businesses are faced with the urgent need to better define data and create an accurate, transparent and accessible view of their metadata. Metadata management and business glossary are foundational technologies that can help companies achieve this goal. EMA developed seven best practices that guide companies to get the most of their data management. All attendees receive the complimentary White Paper Managing Metadata for Accessibility, Transparency and Accountability authored by Shawn Rogers.
I am not sure what some of these words and phrases mean. For example, “better define data”. My question, “What data?” Next I struggled with “create an accurate, transparent, and accessible view of their metadata.” Now there are commercial systems which allow “views” of controlled term lists. One such vendor is Access Innovations, an outfit which visited me in rural Kentucky to talk about new approaches to indexing certain types of problematic content which is proliferating in organizations. Think in terms of social content without much context other than a “handle”, date, and time even within a buttoned up company.
What do users know? Image source: http://www.computersunplugged.com.au/images/angry-man.gif
Another phrase that caught my limited attention was “metadata management and business glossary are foundational”. Okay, but before one manages, one must do a modest amount of work. Even automated systems benefit from smart algorithms helped with a friendly human crafted training document set or direct intervention by a professional information scientist. Some organizations use commercial controlled term lists to seed the automatic content tagging system. I am all for management, but I don’t think I want to jump from the hard work to “management” without going to the controlled vocabulary gym and doing some push ups. “Business glossary” baffled me and I was not annoyed by what seems to be a high school grammar misstep. Nope. The “business glossary” is a good thing, but it must be constructed to match the language of the users, the corpus, and the accepted terminology. Indexing a document with the term “terminal” is not too helpful unless there is a “field code” that pegs the terminal as one where I find airplanes, trains, death, or computer stuff. A “business glossary” does not appear from thin air,although a “cloud” outfit may have that notion. I know better.
I did a quick Google search for “Shawn Rogers,” author of the white paper. Note: I don’t know what a white paper is. The first hit is to a document which is on what I think is a pay-to-play information service called “b-eye”. The second hit points to a LinkedIn profile. I don’t know if this is “the” Shawn Rogers whom I seek. I learned that he is:
[a professional who] has more than 19 years of hands-on IT experience with a focus on Internet-enabled technology. In 2004 he cofounded the BeyeNETWORK and held the position of Executive Vice President and Editorial Director. Shawn guided the company’s international growth strategy and helped the BeyeNETWORK grow to 18 web sites around the world making it the largest and most read community covering the business intelligence, data warehousing, performance management and data integration space. The BeyeNETWORK was sold to TechTarget in April 2010.
I concluded this was “the” Mr. Rogers I sought and that he or his organization is darned good at search engine optimization type work.
What clicked in my mind was a triple tap of hypotheses:
- A couple of services firms have teamed up to cash in on the taxonomy and metadata craze. I thought metadata had come and gone, but obviously these firms are, to use Google’s metaphor, putting more wood behind the metadata thing. So, this is a marketing in order to sell services. As I said, I am okay with that.
- These firms have found a way to address the core problem of indexing by people who do not have the faintest idea of what’s involved in metatagging that helps users. One hopes.
- The two companies are not sure what the outcome of the webinar and the white paper distribution will be. In short, this is a fishing trip or an exploration of the paths on an island owned by a cruise company. There’s not much at risk.
Okay, enough.
Here’s my view on metadata.
First, most organizations have zero editorial policy and zero willingness to do the hard work required to dedupe, normalize, and tag content in a way that allows a user to find a particular item without sticky notes, making phone calls, or clicking and scanning stuff for the needed items. I think vendors promise the sun and moon and deliver gravel. Don’t agree? Use the comments section, please. Don’t call me.
Second, most of the vendors who offer industrial strength indexing and content processing systems know what needs to be done to make content findable. But the licensees often want a silver bullet. So the vendors remain silent on certain key points such as the Roman legionnaire working in the snow part. The cost part is often pushed to the margin as well.
Third, the information technology professionals “know” best. Not surprisingly most content access in organizations is a pretty lukewarm activity. I received an email last week chastising me for pointing out that more than half of an organization’s search system users were dissatisfied with whatever system the company made available. Hey, I just report the facts. I know how to find information in my organization.
Fourth, no one pays real attention to the user of a system. The top brass, the IT experts, and the vendors talk about the users. The users don’t know anything and whatever input those folks provide is not germane to the smarties. Little wonder that in some organizations systems are just worked around. Tells range from a Google search appliance in marketing to sticky notes on monitors.
Will I attend the webinar? Nah. I don’t do webinars. Do I want to change the world and make every organization have a super duper controlled term list and findable content? Nah. Don’t care. Do I want outfits like CNBC to do a tiny bit of content curation before posting unusual write ups with possible grammatical errors? You bet. What if those metadata and other tags are uncontrolled, improperly applied, and mismatched to the lingo? Status quo, I assert.
Enjoy the webinar. Good luck with your metadata and the “cloud in your hands” approach. Back to the goose pond. Honk.
Stephen E Arnold, July 29, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search, which is not a white paper and it is not free. But at $20, such a deal.
Indexing a Good Start, not a Solution
July 28, 2011
We love it when 20 somethings discover the wheel, fire, or song. Almost as exciting is the breakthrough that allows today’s digital “experts” to see value in indexing. Yes.
InfoWorld asks, “Can Metadata Save Us from Cloud Data Overload?”
The simple answer: not by itself.
Writer David Linthicum acknowledges that the rapid and redundant proliferation of data demands action beyond moving it all to the Cloud. Many think that metadata is the solution. Properly tagging your data is necessary, but the big picture is more complicated than that. He states:
The management of data needs to be in the context of an overreaching data management strategy. That means actually considering the reengineering of existing systems, as well as understanding the common data elements among the systems. Doing so requires much more than just leveraging metadata; it calls for understanding the information within the portfolio of applications, cloud or not. It eventually leads to the real fix. The problem with this approach is that it’s a scary concept to consider.
Well, sort of. But indexing is not horse shoes. Indeed, and people and businesses often, though unwisely, spin their wheels looking for easy solutions rather than confront an overwhelming reality. The truth, though, is that indexing is not a silver bullet. There are issues related to editorial policy, use of a controlled term list, and quality control.
The sooner companies face this fact and get into the nuts and bolts of their data operations, the sooner they will reap the rewards of efficiency. In the meantime, we await the next big thing. We have heard it is drawing on cave walls. There’s an automated image indexing system ready to tag those graphic outputs too.
Stephen E Arnold, July 28, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Knovio Reinvents the Power Point Presentation
July 28, 2011
We have noticed that finding PowerPoint presentations online is becoming more of a challenge. We think that the emergence of alternative services such as Slideshare.net is having an impact. Searching remains a bit of a challenge. When we were looking for information about PowerPoint presentations online, we came across an interesting new tool now available in Beta: Knovio aims to elevate the Power Point presentation. Right now the project is incomplete, and you can participate in the Beta program through a link on the home page.
The application, created by KnowledgeVision, lets you add video to any Power Point slide show. Knovio’s About page elaborates:
Knovio™ is an innovative tool for turning PowerPoint® slides into rich video presentations with just a web browser and webcam. With Knovio, you can take static PowerPoint slides to a new level with video and audio presentations that can be accessed anytime on-demand and shared with others through email and social media.
The explanatory video on their Web site also serves as an example of their creation.
It’s a good idea: you can include your verbal and gestural input without having to schedule a meeting. Also, anything to liven up Power Point has to be progress, right?
KnowledgeVision hopes to keep a free version of Knovio available, while eventually offering a premium version through monthly subscription. The company is asking for feedback. We offered to provide some inputs. You may want to consider this step as well.
Cynthia Murrell, July 28, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Squiz and Funnelback: Supported Open Source
July 28, 2011
Update: Gentle readers, let me be clear. You have to pay for Funnelback. Please, take a look at www.squiz.co.uk. You will see the following message scrolling on the Web page. “Support open source Web experience management.” I am not sure what that phrase means, but it does put open source front and center. If you didn’t see that on the Squiz Web site. Check again. The message was there at 7 25 Eastern time on July 28, 2011. Going forward? Who knows. My point is that some companies are playing the open source “card” but are not open source software publishers. Take Funnelback, which was rooted in a university project at one time. Funnelback is a commercial product, yet the “halo” effect of the “supported open source” phrase could make a person think of Funnelback as just like Lucene. As I did, I saw the phrase on the Squiz Web site and wondered, “What’s the open source angle?” I think that some folks may see this banner and perceive a commercial product as open source. That’s the way life is in the rough and tumble world of search and content processing marketing. My advice. Ask your vendor this question: “What’s this product cost to license?”– Stephen E Arnold, ArnoldIT.com
Since the inception of the free software movement in the early 1980s, open source software has revolutionized the way consumers obtain information, allowing them to save as much as $60 billion a year, according to a report by Standish Group. “Supported open source” is a business opportunity for many organizations. Squiz, the Web experience management company, is offering a range of products that have the buzz of open source with a commercial slant.
On July 25, 2011, “University Case Studies from Squiz and Funnelback Search” announced the continued evolution of open sourced software in citing Squiz and Funnelback Search’s success in transforming City University’s puny intranet and course catalog. Among other things, the duo incorporated a new search engine (Funnelback Search), servers, CMS (Squiz Matrix), network, content, design, and business processes. That’s a wholesale implementation of “new”. A Squiz news release revealed:
City University’s redesign project targeted their two main corporate sites (www.city.ac.uk and www.cass.ac.uk) as well as the university’s intranet – a huge undertaking which took a total of 15 months. The university has a highly skilled web team with a wealth of technical and development talents, so they did most of the work in-house allowing them to take complete ownership of the project.
With expertise in certain open source methods at a premium, Squiz and its search product are positioning for growth. For more information see Dan Jackson’s presentation on the City University case study. The Squiz business model is quite interesting and contrasts sharply with that of Lucid Imagination which is not offering a full spectrum of software and support like Squiz. Which horse will win the revenue race? I am monitoring this business model competition for Beyond Search.
Jasmine Ashton, July 28, 2011
Sponsored by Pandia.com, publishers of The New Landscape of Enterprise Search
Protected: SharePoint and Your Feed Need
July 28, 2011
Microsoft, Search, and Perseverance
July 27, 2011
I no longer spend much time thinking about Microsoft search. Frankly it is too confusing. In my different monographs, I have mentioned or discussed in my typical superficial manner, Outlook search, Windows search, free SharePoint search, Fast Search,Cognition Technologies’ search add in, Powerset search and content processing, various research search systems, SQL Server search, the multiple accounting systems’ search, and probably a few others. But now the focus is on Bing search triggered in part by “Why Microsoft Won’t Dump Bing.” This screed was sparked by the New York Times spider friendly article revealing that Bing was an expensive proposition.
Okay, be still my heart.
Search is expensive. One of the mysteries of online is the natural monopoly. So when an online service is expensive, the number of people in the game is modest. Why is search expensive? As the amount of digital data goes up, so do the plumbing costs. When Mr. Internet was in diapers, indexing content was less expensive. Now the only thing that reduces the cost of indexing is processing modest amounts of content.
Microsoft dumped book scanning an indexing due to cost. But Microsoft is not in a position to concede online search to the fun laddies and lassies at the Google. If anything, Microsoft will spend even more money on search in the foreseeable future.
Here’s why:
First, Microsoft is competing with Google and Google is a monopoly. Knocking off the big dog is tough.
Second, Microsoft bought Fast Search & Transfer, which * actually * had a workable Web indexing system. With $1.2 billion for a darned interesting product, Microsoft is like the guy in the yellow woods who tries to walk down two roads simultaneously. Tough to do without a couple of closely aligned paths. Bing and Fast Search’s Web system are like one path around Yellowstone and the other path running the other way to Jackson Hole. Arduous undertaking even in a sci fi novel.
Third, Microsoft like Google does not have a unified search strategy. Yikes! Heresy. Consider Google. There is the Google Search Appliance, Site Search, the Android search, and the other bits and pieces that look like the same thing but do vary in some fascinating ways. Microsoft’s approach is similar, but Google seems to be morphing into Microsoft. One of the goslings at lunch a moment ago pointed out that he thought the Google banning of companies from Google+ was the genius of a former Microsoft employee. True? False? No one really cares because neither Google nor Bing will be changing their informed approach to search.
Let’s look forward.
Google and Microsoft will face some search challenges because search is no longer the focal point of the teens we have been observing. Asking friends seems to be popular. Apps that deliver info, ready to gobble, no provenance required.
My view is that we will using the decision engine longer than Microsoft bought Bing ads on Adam Carolla’s podcast.
Stephen E Arnold, July 27, 2011
Freebie just like Bing.
Open Source Popularity a Fact: Malware Signals Success
July 27, 2011
In a twisted way, does this mean that open source has arrived? TechEye declares, “Malware Makers Hitting Open Source Projects.” Writer Nick Farrell reports:
Open sauce [sic] developers are getting hit by an alarming trend amongst malware makers to take their code and counterfeit it, or place malware under the bonnet. . . . The result is a poor product that doesn’t work as intended, that can’t be uninstalled and that clearly abuses its users and their privacy.
Farrell refers to Ludovic Fauvet’s blog, where the developer states the corrupted versions are distributed through a number of websites which purchase Google AdWords ads to bring in their victims. A list of such sites is provided in both articles so you know what to avoid. Until the newest ones come out, of course.
So, the bad guys want to exploit open source software. I guess we shouldn’t be surprised. The appearance of malware underscores the significance of this branch of the software oak tree.
Cynthia Murrell, July 27, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
Google, Engineers, and Some Push Back
July 27, 2011
Frankly we love engineers. The more technical, the stronger our affinity becomes. We found the techno-pundit, Robert X. Cringely catching our attention with a write up called “Google’s Biggest Problem: It’s Too Rational.” Why so much animosity to the don’t-be-evil crowd?
Writer Robert X. Cringely points to former Google employee number 59, Douglas Edwards, who insists that management suffers a logical disconnect from the rest of the world that keeps them from effectively addressing, or even recognizing, problems. Edwards cites Gmail privacy concerns as an example.
Cringely isn’t just focusing on Google, though. He has similar gripes with other large businesses, like Facebook and Microsoft. He opines:
What do these companies have in common? They were all founded and run by engineers. . . . In my experience, engineers tend to divide the world into two camps: other engineers and everyone else. And the second camp doesn’t matter because they refuse to read instruction manuals. That’s the attitude Google, Facebook, and so on bring to the table. They know that the world is mostly made up of non-engineers, and they have to accommodate them — but they don’t like it very much, and they often don’t do a good job of it. That’s where these companies fall down.
On the other hand, Cringely believes that Apple has more successful customer interactions because Steve Jobs is not an engineer. Hmm. Does he have a point?
No, our view is that engineers have “won”. The losers are art history majors, failed journalists, and unemployed search engine optimization experts. Google and a handful of other companies have become monopolies because each of these favored outfits are where the action is. Other reasons why Mr. Edwards and other critics of engineers find life tough in the intellectual play ground of a company of the Google ilk include:
- If you can figure something out, you are a loser
- If you want to own a jet with a water bed, you need to look for the logical errors in Parallel Reduction in Resource Lambda-Calculus by Michele Pagani and Paolo Tranquiili
- If you expect to survive in the post-PC world, you better learn how to program. If you code in Assembler, you don’t need to comment your code. Google-types can figure it out.
The era of the digital amateur is upon us. The technically adept inhabit Mt. Olympus. Get over it and adapt. Then again maybe those popular kids in high school are going out Friday night? Nah, who cares? I have work to do.
Stephen E Arnold, July 27, 2011
Sponsored by ArnoldIT.com, the resource for enterprise search information and current news about data fusion
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
