Semantics in the Enterprise: Partial Business Case
March 12, 2009
If you struggle to justify spending money for semantic technology, you may want to take a look at “Is It Time for the Use of Semantic Technologies in the Enterprise?” by Javier Carbonell here. When I read the article, I sensed that Mr. Carbonell was involved in or privy to a business case for spending money on semantic technology. Mr. Carbonell does not define “semantics”, and I was forced to assume he was referencing software that can figure out what a “document” or other information object is about. The idea is to get beyond keyword indexing which is quite yesterday in my opinion. He acknowledged that the challenges range from staff expertise to technology. The core of the article, in my opinion, is the real problem today: justifying the expense for a technology or suite of technologies that may not be well understood or may not be easy to implement within a rigid timeline or budget. He breaks down his view of costs. You may find the review of methods useful. Keep in mind that the key to the type of analysis Mr. Carbonell recommends is the validity of the assumptions used to “fill in the blanks” where unknowns exist. Guessing does not work too well as the recent financial trouble suggests. Use of a method with faulty assumptions will trigger a host of interesting consequences. When I sense that those developing budgets for semantic projects don’t have the data needed to generate cost analysis that match my experience in the real world, I walk away from the project. A semantics project that goes off the rails can wreck havoc on a budget and on the project manager’s career. When those upsides slide into red ink, the stain may take some time to disappear.
Stephen Arnold, March 12, 2009
Media Cloud: Foggy Payoff
March 12, 2009
I wrote about Calais in 2008. You can find that article here. Calais makes use of ClearForest technology to perform semantic tagging. I am cautious when large companies make services available at a low or no cost. Now, Calais was pegged to a project at Harvard University. You can read the ReadWriteWeb.com story here. the Media Cloud project delivers some of the Google Trends or Compete.com type outputs from content processed with Calais. For me, the most interesting comment in the write up was:
we see this as an example of how the Internet is driving traditional media to change and respond in new ways. We are excited by the scope and potential that Media Cloud brings to anyone interested in following news and media trends.
I have a different view. A university demo project is just that a demo with an academic spin. Traditional media need to do more than a demo before the money in the checking and savings accounts runs dry.
Stephen Arnold, March 12, 2009
Search May Not Mean Search
March 11, 2009
Last week, I had a disturbing conversation with a very confident 30 something. After more than a year of planning, I learned that the company had decided to deploy a key word search system from a big name vendor. I asked, “What do the employees need? Keyword retrieval? Reports? Alerts?”
The answer was, “We have that information from informal discussions. Keyword search.”
I thanked the person for lunch and walked away shaking my head. Businesses are struggling for revenue, and employees in the organizations I have visited since October 2008 strike me as wanting to make their companies successful. Employees are savvy and know that if their employer goes down the drain finding another job might not be easy.
For some, there will be increased competition. Darwinianism is an abstract concept until a person can’t find work.
The 30 something had a job. An important job. The information technology unit at this services firms had search systems but employees did not use them. The IT budget was getting scrutiny, so the manager and tech staff decided it was time to get a “new” search system.
The problem was that I had in 2003 and 2004 conducted interviews with a number of senior managers at this organization. I even knew the president of one of the operating units socially. Although my lunch took place in 2009, I realized that the IT department was going to make the same errors it had with its previous search procurements. Every two or three years, the company licensed another system. After a honeymoon of six months, the results were predictable in my opinion. Grousing and declining usage.
Vendors have a tough time breaking the cycle. Some search companies pitch a “simple solution” that is like a One a Day vitamin. Others deliver a toolkit that is far to complicated for the IT team to get working and scarce budget dollars cannot be pumped into what amounts a customized search system.
If this scenario resonates, you may want to navigate to LLrX and read the article, “Knowledge Discovery Resources 2009: An Internet MiniGuide Annotated Link Compilation” here. The listing was compiled by the prolific Marcus P. Zillman, Internet expert. What I liked about the meaty listing was it made clear to me one point: Search does not mean keyword retrieval. The list provided me with a meaty link burger. I discovered a number of useful resources. You will want to download it and do some exploration.
I did not send the list to my lunch pal, the 30 something who knows what his users want without bothering with surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observation of users in action. As long as organizations hire information technology professionals who know what “search” means, a list won’t make much difference.
You might have a more open mind. I hope so. Search defined as keyword retrieval is about as relevant today as a bronze surgical instrument in an emergency room in a big city hospital. Access to information in a way that meets the needs of individual users is, in my opinion, what search means.
Stephen Arnold, March 11, 2009
Search: Still in Its Infancy
March 9, 2009
Click here and read the job postings for intelligence professionals. Notice that the skills are those that require an ability to manipulate information, not just in English but in other languages. Here’s a portion of one posting:
Core Collector-certified Collection Management Officers (CMO’s) oversee and facilitate the collection, evaluation, classification, and dissemination of foreign intelligence developed from clandestine sources. CMO’s play a critical role in ensuring that foreign intelligence collected by clandestine sources is relevant,
I keep reading about search is stable and search is simple. I don’t think so. Because language is complex, the challenge for search and content processing vendors is significant. With more than 150 systems available to manipulate information, one would think that software could handle basic collection and analysis, right? Software helps but search is still in its infancy. The source of the jobs? The US Central Intelligence Agency, which is reasonably well equipped with search, text processing, and content analysis systems. Too bad the reality of search is complex, but some find it easy to say the problem is solved and move on in a fog of wackiness.
Stephen Arnold, March 9, 2009
MyRoar: NLP Financial Information Centric Service
March 6, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who alerted me to MyRoar.com. This is a vertical search service that relies on natural language processing. I did some sleuthing and learned that François Schiettecatte joined the company earlier this year. Mr. Schiettecatte has a distinguished track record in search, natural language processing, and content processing. French by birth, he went to university in the UK and has lived and worked in the US for many years. Here’s what the company says about MyRoar.com:
In today’s current political and economic environment people have never had more questions. MyRoar helps people sort through the hype to find just the answers they are looking for. Extraneous information is eliminated, while saving hours of time or abandonment of search. We provide a fun new interface that keeps users up to date on current news, which helps them formulate the best questions to ask. MyRoar is a Natural Language Processing Question Answering Search Engine. Using integrated technologies we are able to offer high precision allowing users to ask questions relating to finance and news. MyRoar integrates proprietary Question Answer matching techniques with the best English NLP tools that span the globe.
You can use the system here. The system performed quite well on my test queries; for example, “What are the current financials for Parker Hannifin?” returned two results with the data I wanted. I will try to get Mr. Schiettecatte to participate in the Search Wizards Speak interview series. Give the system a whirl.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Vyre: Software, Services, Search, and More
March 6, 2009
A happy quack to the reader who sent me a link to Vyre, whose catchphrase is “dissolving complexity.” The last time I looked at the company, I had pigeon holed it as a consulting and content management firm. The news release my reader sent me pointed out that the company has a mid market enterprise search solution that is now at version 4.x. I am getting old, or at least too sluggish to keep pace with content management companies that offer search solutions. My recollection is that Crown Point moved in this direction. I have a rather grim view of CMS because software cannot help organizations create high quality content or at least what I think is high quality content.
The Wikipedia description of Vyre matches up with the information in my archive:
VYRE, now based in the UK, is a software development company. The firm uses the catchphrase “Enterprise 2.0” to describe its enterprise solutions for business.The firm’s core product is Unify. The Web based services allows users to build applications and content management. The company has technology that manages digital assets. The firm’s clients in 2006 included Diageo, Sony, Virgin, and Lowe and Partners. The company has reinvented itself several times since the late 1990s doing business as NCD (Northern Communication and Design), Salt, and then Vyre.
You can read Wikipedia summary here. You can read a 2006 Butler Group analysis here. My old link worked this evening (March 5, 2009), but click quickly. In my files I had a link to a Vyre presentation but it was not about search. Dated 2008, you may find the information useful. The Vyre presentations are here. The link worked for me on March 5, 2009. The only name I have in my archive is Dragan Jotic. Other names of people linked to the company are here. Basic information about the company’s Web site is here. Traffic, if these data are correct, seem to be trending down. I don’t have current interface examples. The wiki for the CMS service is here. (Note: the company does not use its own CMS for the wiki. The wiki system is from MediaWiki. No problem for me, but I was curious about this decision because the company offers its own CMS system. You can get a taste of the system here.
Administrative Vyre screen.
After a bit of poking around, it appears that Vyre has turned up the heat on its public relations activities. The Seybold Report here presented a news story / news release about the search system here. I scanned the release and noted this passage as interesting for my work:
…version 4.4 introduces powerful new capabilities for performing facetted and federated searching across the enterprise. Facetted search provides immediate feedback on the breakdown of search results and allows users to quickly and accurately drill down within search results. Federated search enables users to eradicate content silos by allowing users to search multiple content repositories.
Vyre includes a taxonomy management function with its search system, if I read the Seybold article correctly. I gravitate to the taxonomy solution available from Access Innovations, a company run by my friend and colleagues Marje Hlava and Jay Ven Eman. Their system generates ANSI standard thesauri and word lists, which is the sort of stuff that revs my engine.
Endeca has been the pioneer in the enterprise sector for “guided navigation” which is a synonym in my mind for faceted search. Federated search gets into the functions that I associated with Bright Planet, Deep Web Technologies, and Vivisimo, among others. I know that shoving large volumes of data through systems that both facetize content and federated it are computationally intensive. Consequently, some organizations are not able to put the plumbing in place to make these computationally intensive systems hum like my grandmother’s sewing machine.
If you are in the market for a CMS and asset management company’s enterprise search solution, give the company’s product a test drive. You can buy a report from UK Data about this company here. I don’t have solid pricing data. My notes to myself record the phrase, “Sensible pricing.” I noted that the typical cost for the system begins at about $25,000. Check with the company for current license fees.
Stephen Arnold, March 6, 2009
Harry Collier, Infonortics, Exclusive Interview
March 2, 2009
Editor’s Note: I spoke with Harry Collier on February 27, 2009, about the Boston Search Engine Meeting. The conference, more than a decade into in-depth explorations of search and content processing, is one of the most substantive search and content processing programs. The speakers have come from a range of information retrieval disciplines. The conference organizing committee has attracted speakers from the commercial and research sectors. Sales pitches and recycled product reviews are discouraged. Substantive presentations remain the backbone of the program. Conferences about search, search engine optimization, and Intranet search have proliferated in the last decade. Some of these shows focus on the “soft” topics in search and wrap the talks with golf outings and buzzwords. The attendee learns about “platinum sponsors” and can choose from sales pitches disguised as substantive presentations. The Infonortics search conference has remained sharply focused and content centric. One attendee told me last year, “I have to think about what I have learned. A number of speakers were quite happy to include equations in their talks.” Yep, equations. Facts. Thought provoking presentations. I still recall the tough questions posed to Larry Page (Google) after his talk in at the 1999 conference. He argued that truncation was not necessary and several in attendance did not agree with him. Google has since implemented truncation. Financial pressures have forced some organizers to cancel some of their 2009 information centric shows; for example, Gartner, Magazine Publishers Association., and Newspaper Publishers Association. to name three. Infonortics continues to thrive with its reputation for delivering content plus an opportunity to meet some of the most influential individuals in the information retrieval business. You can learn more about Infonortics here. The full text of the interview with Mr. Collier, who resides in the Cotswolds with an office in Tetbury, Glou., appears below:
Why did you start the Search Engine Meeting? How does it different from other search and SEO conferences?
The Search Engine Meeting grew out of a successful ASIDIC meeting held in Albuquerque in March 1994. The program was organized by Everett Brenner and, to everyone’s surprise, that meeting attracted record numbers of attendees. Ev was enthusiastic about continuing the meeting idea, and when Ev was enthusiastic he soon had you on board. So Infonortics agreed to take up the Search Engine Meeting concept and we did two meetings in Bath in England in 1997 and 1998, then moved thereafter to Boston (with an excursion to San Francisco in 2002 and to The Netherlands in 2004). Ev set the tone of the meetings: we wanted serious talks on serious search domain challenges. The first meeting in Bath already featured top speakers from organizations such as WebCrawler, Lycos, InfoSeek, IBM, PLS, Autonomy, Semio, Excalibur, NIST/TREC and Claritech. And ever since we have tried to avoid areas such as SEO and product puffs and to keep to the path of meaty, research talks for either search engine developers, or those in an enterprise environment charged with implementing search technology. The meetings tread a line between academic research meetings (lots of equations) and popular search engine optimization meetings (lots of commercial exhibits).
Pictured from the left: Anne Girard, Harry Collier, and Joan Brenner, wife of Ev Brenner. Each year the best presentation at the conference is recognized with the Evvie, an award named in honor of her husband, and chair of the first conference in 1997.
There’s a great deal of confusion about the meaning of the word “search”, what’s the scope of the definition for this year’s program?
Yes, “Search” is a meaty term. When you step back, searching, looking for things, seeking, hoping to find, hunting, etc are basic activities for human beings — be it seeking peace, searching for true love, trying to find an appropriate carburetor for an old vehicle, or whatever. We tend now to have a fairly catholic definition of what we include in a Search Engine Meeting. Search — and the problems of search — remains central, but we are also interested in areas such as data or text mining (extracting sense from masses of data) as well as visualization and analysis (making search results understandable and useful). We feel the center of attention is moving away from “can I retrieve all the data?” to that of “how can I find help in making sense out of all the data I am retrieving?”
Over the years, your conference has featured big companies like Autonomy, start ups like Google in 1999, and experts from very specialized fields such as Dr. David Evans and Dr. Liz Liddy. What pulls speakers to this conference?
We tend to get some of the good speakers, and most past and current luminaries have mounted the speakers’ podium of the Search Engine Meeting at one time or another. These people see us as a serious meeting where they will meet high quality professional search people. It’s a meeting without too much razzmatazz; we only have a small, informal exhibition, no real sponsorship, and we try to downplay the commercialized side of the search world. So we attract a certain class of person, and these people like finding each other at a smaller, more boutique-type meeting. We select good-quality venues (which is one reason we have stayed with the Fairmont Copley Plaza in Boston for many years), we finance and offer good lunches and a mixer cocktail, and we select meeting rooms that are ideal for an event of 150 or so people. It all helps networking and making contacts.
What people should attend this conference? Is it for scientists, entrepreneurs, marketing people?
Our attendees usually break down into around 50% people working in the search engine field, and 50 percent those charged with implementing enterprise search. Because of Infonortics international background, we have a pretty high international attendance compared with most meetings in the United States: many Europeans, Koreans and Asians. I’ve already used the word “serious”, but this is how I would characterize our typical attendee. They take lots of notes; they listen; they ask interesting questions. We don’t get many academics; Ev Brenner was always scandalized that not one person from MIT had ever attended the meeting in Boston. (That has not changed up until now).
You have the reputation for delivering a content rich program. Who assisted you with the program this year? What are the credentials of these advisor colleagues?
I like to work with people I know, with people who have a good track record. So ever since the first Infonortics Search Engine Meeting in 1997 we have relied upon the advice of people such as you, David Evans (who spoke at the very first Bath meeting), Liz Liddy (Syracuse University) and Susan Feldman (IDC). And over the past nine years or so my close associate, Anne Girard, has provided non-stop research and intelligence as to what is topical, who is up-and-coming, who can talk on what.These five people are steeped in the past, present and future of the whole world of search and information retrieval and bring a welcome sense of perspective to what we do. And, until his much lamented death in January 2006, Ev Brenner was a pillar of strength, tough-minded and with a 45 year track record in the information retrieval area.
Where can readers get more information about the conference?
The Infonortics Web site (www.infonortics.eu) provides one-click access to the Search Engine Meeting section, with details of the current program, access to pdf versions of presentations from previous years, conference booking form and details, the hotel booking form, etc.
Stephen Arnold, March 2, 2009
Attivio’s Sid Probstein: An Exclusive Interview
February 25, 2009
I caught up with Sid Probstein, Attivio’s engaging chief technologist on February 23, 2009. Attivio is a new breed information company. The company combines a number of technologies to allow its licensees to extract more value from structured and unstructured information. Mr. Probstein is one of the speakers at the Boston Search Engine Meeting, a show that is now recognized as one of the most important venues for those serious about search, information retrieval, and content processing. You can register to attend this year’s conference here. Too many conferences features confusing multi track programs, cavernous exhibit halls, and annoyed attendees who find that the substance of the program does not match the marketing hyperbole. When you attend the Boston Search Engine Meeting, you have opportunities to talk directly to influential experts like Mr. Probstein. The full text of the interview appears below.
Will you describe briefly your company and its search / content processing technology? If you are not a company, please, describe your research in search / content processing.
Attivio’s Active Intelligence Engine (AIE) is powering today’s critical business solutions with a completely new approach to unifying information access. AIE supports querying with the precision of SQL and the fuzziness of full-text search. Our patent-applied-for query-side JOIN() operator allows relational data to be manipulated as a database would, but in combination with full-text operations like fuzzy search, fielded search, Boolean search, etc. Finally our ability to save any query as an alert and thereafter have new data trigger a workflow that may notify a user or update another system, brings a sorely needed “active” component to information access.
By extending enterprise search capabilities across documents, data and media, AIE brings deeper insight to business applications and Web sites. AIE’s flexible design enables business and technology leaders to speed innovation through rapid prototyping and deployment, which dramatically lowers risk – and important consideration in today’s economy. Systems integrators, independent software vendors, corporations and government agencies partner with Attivio to automate information-driven processes and gain competitive advantage.
What are the three major challenges you see in search / content processing in 2009?
May I offer three plus a bonus challenge?
First, understanding structured and unstructured data; currently most search engines don’t deal with structured data as it exists; they remove or require removal of the relationships. Retaining these relationships is the key challenge and a core value of information access.
Second, switching from the “pull” model in which end-users consume information, to the “push” model in which end-users and information systems are fed a stream of relevant information and analysis.
Third, being able to easily and rapidly construct information access applications. The year-long implementation cycle simply won’t cut it in the current climate; after all, that was the status quo for the past five years – long, challenging implementations, as search was still nascent. In 2009 what took months should take weeks. Also, the model has to change. Instead of trying to determine exactly how to build your information access strategy – the classic “aim, fire” approach – which often misses! – the new model is to “fire” and then “aim, aim aim” – correct your course and learn as you go so that you ultimately produce an application you are delighted with.
I also want to mention supporting complex analysis and enrichment of many different forms of content. For example: identifying important fields, from a search perspective; detecting relationships between pieces of content, or entire silos of content. This is key to breaking down silos – something leading analysts agree that this will be a major focus in enterprise IT starting in 2011.
With search / content processing decades old, what have been the principal barriers to resolving these challenges in the past?
There are several hurdles. First, the inverted index structure has not traditionally been able to deal with relationships; just terms and documents. Second, there still is a lack of tools to move data around, as opposed to simply obtaining content, has been a barrier for enterprise search in particular. There has not been an analog to “ETL” in the unstructured world. (The “connector” standard is about getting data, not moving it.) Finally, I think there’s a lack of a truly dynamic architecture has meant having to re-index when changing configuration or adding new types of data to the index; also a lack of support for rapid updates has lead to a proliferation of paired search engines and databases.
With the rapid change in the business climate, how will the increasing financial pressure on information technology affect search / content processing?
Information access is critically important during a recession. Every interaction with the customer has the potential to cause churn. Reducing churn is less costly by far then acquiring new customers. Good service is one of the keys to retaining customers, and a typical cause of poor service is … poor information access. A real life example: I recently rolled over my 401K. I had 30 days to do it, and did on the 28th day via phone. On the 29th day someone else from my financial services firm called back and asked me if I wanted to roll my 401K over. This was quite surprising. When asked why the representative didn’t know I had done it the day before, they said “I don’t have access to that information”. The cost of that information access problem was two phone calls: the second rollover call, and then another call back from me to verify that I had, in fact, rolled over my 401k.
From the internal perspective of IT, demand to turn-around information access solutions will be higher than ever. The need to show progress quickly has never been higher, so selecting tools that support rapid development via iteration and prototyping is critically important.
Search / content processing systems have been integrated into such diverse functions as business intelligence and customer support. Do you see search / content processing becoming increasingly integrated into enterprise applications?
Search is an essential feature in most every application used to create, manage or even analyze content. However, in this mode search is both a commodity and a de-facto silo of data. Standalone search and content processing will still be important as it is the best way to build applications using data across these silos. A good example here is what we call the Agile Content Network (ACN). Every content management system (CMS) has at least minimal search facilities. But how can a content provider create new channels and micro-sites of content across many incompatible CMSs? Standalone information access that can cut across silos is the answer.
Google has disrupted certain enterprise search markets with its appliance solution. The Google brand creates the idea in the minds of some procurement teams and purchasing agents that Google is the only or preferred search solution. What can a vendor do to adapt to this Google effect?
It is certainly true that Google has a powerful brand. However, vendors must promote transparency and help educate buyers so that they realize, on their own, the fit or non-fit of the GSA. It is also important to explain how what your product does is different from what Google does and how those differences apply to the customers’ needs for accessing information. Buyers are smart, and the challenge for vendors is to be sure to communicate and educate about needs, goals and the most effective way to attain them.
A good example of the Google brand blinding customers to their own needs is detailed in the following blog entry: http://www.attivio.com/attivio/blog/317-report-from-gilbane-2008-our-take-on-open-source-search.html
As you look forward, what are some new features / issues that you think will become more important in 2009? Where do you see a major break-through over the next 36 months?
I think that there continue to be no real standards around information access. We believe that older standards like SQL need to be updated with full-text capabilities. Legacy enterprise search vendors have traditionally focused on proprietary interfaces or driving their own standards. This will not be the case for the next wave of information access companies. Google and others are showing how powerful language modeling can be. I believe machine translation and various multi-word applications will all become part of the landscape in the next 36 months.
12. Mobile search is emerging as an important branch of search / content processing. Mobile search, however, imposes some limitations on presentation and query submission. What are your views of mobile search’s impact on more traditional enterprise search / content processing?
Mobile information access is definitely emerging in the enterprise. In the short term, it needs to become the instrument by which some updates are delivered – as alerts – and in other cases it is simply a notification that a more complex update – perhaps requiring a laptop – is available. In time mobile devices will be able to enrich results on their own. The iPhone, for example, could filter results using GPS location. The iPhone also shows that complex presentations are increasingly possible.
Ultimately, a mobile device, like the desktop, call center, digital home, brick and mortar store kiosk, are all access and delivery channels. Getting the information flow for each to work consistently while taking advantage of the intimacy of the medium (e.g. GPS information for mobile) is the future.
15. Where can I find more information about your products, services, and research?
The best place is our Web site: www.attivio.com.
Stephen Arnold, February 25, 2009
Deep Web, Surface Sparkles Occlude Deeper Look
February 23, 2009
You can read pundits, mavens, and wizards comment on the New York Times’s “Exploring a Deep Web that Google Can’t Grasp.” The original is here for a short time. Analysis of varying degrees of usefulness appear in Search Engine Land and the Marketing Pilgrim’s “Discovering the Rest of the Internet Iceberg” here.
There’s not much I can say to reverse the flow of misinformation about what Google is doing because Google doesn’t talk to me or to the pundits, mavens, and wizards who explain the company’s alleged weaknesses. In 2007, I wrote a monograph about Google’s programmable search engine disclosures. Published by BearStearns, this document is no longer available. I included the dataspace research in my Beyond Search study for The Gilbane Group in April 2008. In September, I then with Sue Feldman wrote about Google’s dataspace technology. You can get copy of the dataspace report directly from IDC here. Ask for document 213562. Both of these studies explicate Google’s activities in structured data and how those data mesh with Google’s unstructured information methods. I did a detailed explanation of the programmable search engine inventions in Google Version 2.0. That report is still available, but it costs money and I will be darned if I will restate information that is in a for fee study. There are some brief references to these technologies available at ArnoldIT.com without charge and in the archive to this Web log. You can search the ArnoldIT.com archive at www.arnoldit.com/sitemap.html and this Web log from the search box on any blog page.
This sure looks like “deep Web” information to me. But I am not a maven, wizard, or pundit. Nor do I understand search with the depth of the New York Times, search engine optimization experts, and trophy generation analysts. I read patent documents, an activity that clearly disqualifies me from asserting that Google can’t perform a certain action based on its disclosed in open source disclosures. Life is easier when such disclosures are ignored or excluded from the research process.
So what? Two points:
- Google can and does handled structured data. Examples exist in the wild at base.google.com and by entering the query “lga sfo” from Google.com’s search box.
- Yip yap about the “deep Web” has been popular for a while, and it is an issue that requires more analysis than assertions based on relatively modest research into the subject
In my opinion, before asserting that Google’s is baffled, off track, clueless, or slow on the trigger–look a bit deeper than the surface sheen on Googzilla’s scales. No wonder outfits are surprised with some of Google’s “effortless” initiatives. By dealing with superficiality, the substance is not seen for what resides under the surface.
Pundits, mavens, wizards, please, take moment to look into Guha, Halevy, and the other Googlers who have thought about and who are working on structured, semistructured, and unstructured data in the Google data environment. That background will provide some context for Google’s apparent sluggishness in this “space”.
Stephen Arnold, February 23, 2009
Autonomy Encomium
February 23, 2009
If you love Autonomy, you will delight in “Autonomy Continues the Path to eDiscovery with Conceptual Search.” The story appeared in CMSWire here. The write up follows a familiar and entertaining path. The news was so good that Morningstar documented here that Autonomy’s CFO Sushovan Hussain snapped up 85,000 shares of Autonomy stock in February 2009. For this deal, Mr. Hussain sold some shares and turned around and bought more. Life seems to be good for Autonomy as its competitors paddle harder, Autonomy sails on the winds of success.
Stephen Arnold, February 23, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
