Another Word For It Patrick Durusau on Topic Maps and Semantic Diversity

February 27, 2013

Did EMC Just Say Fork You To The Hadoop Community? [No,…]

Filed under: Hadoop,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 5:34 pm

Did EMC Just Say Fork You To The Hadoop Community? by Shaun Connolly.

I need to quote Shaun for context before I explain why my answer is no.

All in on Hadoop?

Glancing at the Pivotal HD diagram in the GigaOM article, they’ve made it easy to distinguish the EMC proprietary components in Blue from the Apache Hadoop-related components in Green. And based on what Scott Yara says “We literally have over 300 engineers working on our Hadoop platform”.

Wow, that’s a lot of engineers focusing on Hadoop! Since Scott Yara admitted that “We’re all in on Hadoop, period.”, a large number of those engineers must be working on the open source Apache Hadoop-related projects labeled in Green in the diagram, right?

So a simple question is worth asking: How many of those 300 engineers are actually committers* to the open source projects Apache Hadoop, Apache Hive, Apache Pig, and Apache HBase?

John Furrier actually asked this question on Twitter and got a reply from Donald Miner from the Greenplum team. The thread is as follows:

tweet thread

Since I agree with John Furrier that understanding the number of committers is kinda related to the context of Scott Yara’s claim, I did a quick scan through the committers pages for Hadoop, Hive, Pig and HBase to seek out the large number of EMC engineers spending their time improving these open source projects. Hmmm….my quick scan yielded a curious absence of EMC engineers directly contributing to these Apache projects. Oh well, I guess the vast majority of those 300 engineers are working on the EMC proprietary technology in the blue boxes.

Why Do Committers Matter?

Simply put: Just because you can read Moby-Dick doesn’t make you talented enough to have authored it.

Committers matter because they are the talented authors who devote their time and energy on working within the Apache Software Foundation community adding features, fixing bugs, and reviewing and approving changes submitted by the other committers. At Hortonworks, we have over 50 committers, across the various Hadoop-related projects, authoring code and working with the community to make their projects better.

This is simply how the community-driven open source model works. And believe it or not, you actually have to be in the community before you can claim you are leading the community and authoring the code!

So when EMC says they are “all-in on Hadoop” but have nary a committer in sight, then that must mean they are “all-in for harvesting the work done by others in the Hadoop community”. Kind of a neat marketing trick, don’t you think?

Scott Yara effectively says that it would take about $50 to $100 million dollars and 300 engineers to do what they’ve done. Sounds expensive, hard, and untouchable doesn’t it? Well, let’s take a close look at the Apache Hadoop community in comparison. Over the lifetime of just the Apache Hadoop project, there have been over 1200 people across more than 80 different companies or entities who have contributed code to Hadoop. Mr. Yara, I’ll see your 300 and raise you a community!

I say no because I remember another Apache project, the Apache webserver.

At last count, the Apache webserver has 63% of the market. The nearest competitor is Microsoft-IIS with 16.6%. Microsoft is in the Hadoop fold thanks to Hortonworks. Assuming Nginx to be the equivalent of Cloudera, there is another 15% of the market. (From Usage of web servers for websites)

If my math is right, that’s approximately 95% of the market.*

The longer EMC remains in self-imposed exile, the more its “Hadoop improvements” will drift from the mainstream releases.

So, my answer is: No, EMC has announced they are forking themselves.

That will carry reward enough without the Hadoop community fretting over much about it.


* Yes, the market share is speculation on my part but has more basis in reality than Mandiant’s claims about Chinese hackers.

February 7, 2013

Open Source Rookies of the Year

Filed under: Marketing,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 11:26 am

Open Source Rookies of the Year

From the webpage:

The fifth annual Black Duck Open Source Rookies of the Year program recognizes the top new open source projects initiated in 2012. This year’s Open Source Rookies honorees span JavaScript frameworks, cloud, mobile, and messaging projects that address needs in the enterprise, government, gaming and consumer applications, among others, and reflect important trends in the open source community.

The 2012 Winners:

Honorable Mention: DCPUToolChain – an assembler, compiler, emulator and IDE for DCPU-16 virtual CPU (Ohloh entry).

What lessons do you draw from these awards about possible topic map projects for the coming year?

Projects that would interest developers that is. 😉

For example, Inasafe is described as:

InaSAFE provides a simple but rigorous way to combine data from scientists, local governments and communities to provide insights into the likely impacts of future disaster events. The software is focused on examining, in detail, the impacts that a single hazard would have on specific sectors, for example, the location of primary schools and estimated number of students affected by a possible tsunami like in Maumere, for instance, when it happened during the school hours.

Which is fine so long as I am seated in a reinforced concrete bunker with redundant power supplies.

On the other hand, if I am using a mobile device to access the same data source during a tornado watch, shouldn’t I get the nearest safe location?

Reduced or even eliminated navigation with minimal data could be returned from a topic map based on geo-location and active weather alerts.

I am sure there are others.

Comments/suggestions?

January 12, 2013

13 Things People Hate about Your Open Source Docs

Filed under: Documentation,Open Source,Software — Patrick Durusau @ 7:06 pm

13 Things People Hate about Your Open Source Docs by Andy Lester.

From the post:

1. Lacking a good README or introduction

2. Docs not available online

3. Docs only available online

4. Docs not installed with the package

5. Lack of screenshots

6. Lack of realistic examples

7. Inadequate links and references

8. Forgetting the new user

9. Not listening to the users

10. Not accepting user input

11. No way to see what the software does without installing it

12. Relying on technology to do your writing

13. Arrogance and hostility toward the user

See Andy’s post for the details and suggestions on ways to improve.

Definitely worth a close read!

January 7, 2013

European Commission’s Low Attack on Open Source [TMs and Transparency]

Filed under: EU,Open Source,Topic Maps,Transparency — Patrick Durusau @ 7:22 am

European Commission’s Low Attack on Open Source by Glyn Moody.

From the post:

If ACTA was the biggest global story of 2012, more locally there’s no doubt that the UK government’s consultation on open standards was the key event. As readers will remember, this was the final stage in a long-running saga with many twists and turns, mostly brought about by some uncricket-like behaviour by proprietary software companies who dread a truly level playing-field for government software procurement.

Justice prevailed in that particular battle, with open standards being defined as those with any claimed patents being made available on a royalty-free basis. But of course these things are never that simple. While the UK has seen the light, the EU has actually gone backwards on open standards in recent times.

Again, as long-suffering readers may recall, the original European Interoperability Framework also required royalty-free licensing, but what was doubtless a pretty intense wave of lobbying in Brussels overturned that, and EIF v2 ended up pushing FRAND, which effectively locks out open source – the whole point of the exercise.

Shamefully, some parts of the European Commission are still attacking open source, as I revealed a couple of months ago when Simon Phipps spotted a strange little conference with the giveaway title of “Implementing FRAND standards in Open Source: Business as usual or mission impossible?”

The plan was pretty transparent: organise something in the shadows, so that the open source world would be caught hopping. The fact that I only heard about it a few weeks beforehand, when I spend most of my waking hours scouting out information on the open source world, open standards and Europe, reading thousands of posts and tweets a week, shows how quiet the Commission kept about this.

This secrecy allowed the organisers to cherry pick participants to tilt the discussion in favour of software patents in Europe (which shouldn’t even exist, of course, according to the European Patent Convention), FRAND supporters and proprietary software companies, even though the latter are overwhelmingly American (so much for loyalty to the European ideal.) The plan was clearly to produce the desired result that open source was perfectly compatible with FRAND, because enough people at this conference said so.

But the “EU” hasn’t “gone backwards” on open standards. Organizations, as juridical entities, can’t go backwards or forwards on any topic. Officers, members, representatives of organizations, that is a different matter.

That is where topic maps could help bring transparency to a process such as the opposition to open source software.

For example, it is not:

  • “some parts of the European Commission” but named individuals with photographs and locations
  • “the organizers” but named individuals with specified relationships to commercial software vendors
  • “enough people at this conference” but paid representatives of software vendors and others financially interested in a no open source outcome

TM’s can help tear aware the governmental and corporate veil over these “consultations.”

What you will find are people who are profiting or intend to do so from their opposition to open source software.

Their choice, but they should be forced to declare their allegiance to seek personal profit over public good.

I first saw this at: EU Experiences Setback in Open Source.

Ten Simple Rules for the Open Development of Scientific Software

Filed under: Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 6:08 am

Ten Simple Rules for the Open Development of Scientific Software (Prlić A, Procter JB (2012) Ten Simple Rules for the Open Development of Scientific Software. PLoS Comput Biol 8(12): e1002802. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002802)

The ten rules:

Rule 1: Don’t Reinvent the Wheel

Rule 2: Code Well

Rule 3: Be Your Own User

Rule 4: Be Transparent

Rule 5: Be Simple

Rule 6: Don’t Be a Perfectionist

Rule 7: Nurture and Grow Your Community

Rule 8: Promote Your Project

Rule 9: Find Sponsors

Rule 10: Science Counts

The same ten rules should work for development of open development of semantic annotations for data.

What do you think?

I first saw this at: PLOS Computational Biology: Ten Simple Rules for the Open Development of Scientific Software by Kevin Davies.

December 10, 2012

[P]urchase open source software products…based on its true technical merits [Alert: New Government Concept]

Filed under: Government,Open Source,Talend — Patrick Durusau @ 8:36 pm

Talend, an open source based company, took the lead in obtained a favorable ruling on software conformance with the Trade Agreement Act (TAA).

Trade Agreement Act: Quick summary – Goods manufactured in non-designated countries, cannot be purchased by federal agencies. Open source software can have significant contact with non-designated countries. Non-conformance with the TAA, means open source software loses an important market.

Talend obtained a very favorable ruling for open source software. The impact of that ruling:

The Talend Ruling is significant because government users now have useful guidance specifically addressing open source software that is developed and substantially transformed in a designated country, but also includes, or is based upon, source code from a non-designated country,” said Fern Lavallee, DLA Piper LLP (US), counsel to Talend. “Federal agencies can now purchase open source software products like Talend software based on its true technical merits, including ease of use, flexibility, robust documentation and data components and its substantial life-cycle cost advantages, while also having complete confidence in the product’s full compliance with threshold requirements like the TAA. The timing of this Ruling is right given the Department of Defense’s well publicized attention and commitment to Better Buying Power and DoD’s recent Open Systems Architecture initiative. (Quote from Government Agency Gives Talend Green Light on Open Source)

An important ruling for all open source software projects, including topic maps.

I started to post about it when it first appeared but reports of rulings aren’t the same as the rulings themselves.

Talend graciously forwarded a copy of the ruling and gave permission for it to be posted for your review. Talend-Inc-US-Customs-and-Border-Protection-Response-Letter.pdf

Looking forward to news of your efforts to make it possible for governments to buy open source software “…based on its true technical merits.”

October 22, 2012

Searching Big Data’s Open Source Roots

Filed under: BigData,Hadoop,Lucene,LucidWorks,Mahout,Open Source,Solr — Patrick Durusau @ 1:56 pm

Searching Big Data’s Open Source Roots by Nicole Hemsoth.

Nicole talks to Grant Ingersoll, Chief Scientist at LucidWorks, about the open source roots of big data.

No technical insights but a nice piece to pass along to the c-suite. Investment in open source projects can pay rich dividends. So long as you don’t need them next quarter. 😉

And a snapshot of where we are now, which is on the brink of new tools and capabilities in search technologies.

September 16, 2012

New Army Guide to Open-Source Intelligence

Filed under: Intelligence,Open Data,Open Source,Public Data — Patrick Durusau @ 4:06 pm

New Army Guide to Open-Source Intelligence

If you don’t know Full Text Reports, you should.

A top-tier research professional’s hand-picked selection of documents from academe, corporations, government agencies, interest groups, NGOs, professional societies, research institutes, think tanks, trade associations, and more.

You will winnow some chaff but also find jewels like Open Source Intelligence (PDF).

From the post:

  • Provides fundamental principles and terminology for Army units that conduct OSINT exploitation.
  • Discusses tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTP) for Army units that conduct OSINT exploitation.
  • Provides a catalyst for renewing and emphasizing Army awareness of the value of publicly available information and open sources.
  • Establishes a common understanding of OSINT.
  • Develops systematic approaches to plan, prepare, collect, and produce intelligence from publicly available information from open sources.

Impressive intelligence overview materials.

Would be nice to re-work into a topic map intelligence approach document with the ability to insert a client’s name and industry specific examples. Has that militaristic tone that is hard to capture with civilian writers.

September 9, 2012

Best Open Source[?]

Filed under: Open Source,Software — Patrick Durusau @ 3:16 pm

Best Open Source

Are you familiar with this open source project listing site?

I ask because I encountered it today and while it looks interesting, I have the following concerns:

  • Entries are not dated (at least that I can find). Undated entries are not quite useless but nearly so.
  • Entries are not credited (no authors cited). Another strike against the entries.
  • Rating (basis for) isn’t clear.

It looks suspicious but it could be poor design.

Comments/suggestions?

July 29, 2012

OSCON 2012

OSCON 2012

Over 4,000 photographs were taken at the MS booth.

I wonder how many of them include Doug?

Drop by the OSCON website after you count photos of Doug.

Your efforts at topic mapping will improve from the experience.

From the OSCON site visit.

What you get from counting photos of Doug is unknown. 😉

July 20, 2012

Open Source at Netflix [Open Source Topic Maps Are….?]

Filed under: Open Source,Topic Maps,Wikipedia — Patrick Durusau @ 10:34 am

Open Source at Netflix by Ruslan Meshenberg.

A great plug for open source (among others):

Improved code and documentation quality – we’ve observed that the peer pressure from “Social Coding” has driven engineers to make sure code is clean and well structured, documentation is useful and up to date. What we’ve learned is that a component may be “Good enough for running in production, but not good enough for Github”.

A question as much to myself as anyone: Where are the open source topic maps?

There have been public dump sites for topic maps but have you seen an active community maintaining a public topic map?

Is it a technology/interface issue?

A control/authorship issue?

Something else?

Wikipedia works, although uneven. And there are a number of other similar efforts that are more or less successful.

Suggestions on what sets them apart?

Or suggestions you think should be tried? It isn’t possible to anticipate success. If the opposite were true, we would all be very successful. (Or at least that’s what I would wish for, your mileage may vary.)

Take it as given that any effort at a public topic map tool, a public topic map community or even a particular public topic map, or some combination thereof, is likely to fail.

But, we simply have to dust ourselves off and try other subject or combination of those things or others.

July 19, 2012

More of Microsoft’s App Development Tools Goes Open Source

Filed under: Microsoft,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 2:38 pm

More of Microsoft’s App Development Tools Goes Open Source by Gianugo Rabellino.

From the post:

Today marks a milestone since we launched Microsoft Open Technologies, Inc. (MS Open Tech) as we undertake some important open source projects. We’re excited to share the news that MS Open Tech will be open sourcing the Entity Framework (EF), a database mapping tool useful for application development in the .NET Framework. EF will join the other open source components of Microsoft’s dev tools – MVC, Web API, and Web Pages with Razor Syntax – on CodePlex to help increase the development transparency of this project.

MS Open Tech will serve as an accelerator for these projects by working with the open source communities through our new MS Open Tech CodePlex landing page. Together, we will help build out its source code until shipment of the next product version.

This will enable everyone in the community to monitor and provide feedback on code check-ins, bug-fixes, new feature development, and build and test the products on a daily basis using the most up-to-date version of the source code.

The newly opened EF will, for the first time, allow developers outside Microsoft to submit patches and code contributions that the MS Open Tech development team will review for potential inclusion in the products.

We need more MS “native” topic map engines and applications.

Or topic map capabilities in the core of MS Office™.

Lots of people could start writing topic maps.

Which would be a good thing. A lot of people write documents using MS Word™, they also reach for professional typesetters for publication.

Same will be true for topic maps.

May 16, 2012

Need cash? NLnet advances open source technology by funding new projects

Filed under: Funding,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 1:52 pm

Need cash? NLnet advances open source technology by funding new projects

Next Round of Ideas Due: June 1st 2012.

Lead story at OpenSource.com today.

From the story:

If you have a valuable idea or project that can help create a more open global information society, and are looking for financial means to make your ideas come through, we might be able to help you. Indeed our mission is to fund open source projects and individuals to improve important and strategic networking technologies for the better of mankind. Whether this concerns more robust internet technologies and standards, privacy enhancing technologies or open document formats – we are open for your proposals.

We are independent. We are not like other funding bodies you may have experience with, because we only have to judge on quality and relevance, and not on politics or any other dimension. What is important for us is that the technology you develop and promote is usable for others and has real impact. And we are also interested to hear your inspiring ideas if you are unable to manage it yourself.

We spend our money in supporting strategic initiatives that contribute to an open information society, especially where these are aimed at development and dissemination of open standards and network related technology.

More details in the story or at the NLnet website.

What’s your great idea?

OpenSource.com

Filed under: Open Data,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 1:30 pm

OpenSource.com

Not sure how I got to OpenSource.com but it showed up as a browser tab after a crash. Maybe it is a new feature and not a bug.

Thought I would take the opportunity to point it out (and record it here) as a source of projects and news from the open source community.

Not to mention data sets, source code, marketing opportunities, etc.

April 10, 2012

The Trend Point

Filed under: Analytics,Blogs,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 6:45 pm

The Trend Point

Described by a “sister” publication as:

ArnoldIT has rolled out The Trend Point information service. Published Monday through Friday, the information services focuses on the intersection of open source software and next-generation analytics. The approach will be for the editors and researchers to identify high-value source documents and then encapsulate these documents into easily-digested articles and stories. In addition, critical commentary, supplementary links, and important facts from the source document are provided. Unlike a news aggregation service run by automated agents, librarians and researchers use the ArnoldIT Overflight tools to track companies, concepts, and products. The combination of human-intermediated research with Overflight provide an executive or business professional with a quick, easy, and free way to keep track of important developments in open source analytics. There is no charge for the service.

I was looking for something different to say other than just reporting a new data stream and found this under the “about” link:

I write for fee columns for Enterprise Technology Management, Information Today, Online Magazine, and KMWorld plus a few occasional items. My content reaches somewhere between one and three people each month.

I started to monetize Beyond Search in 2008. I have expanded our content services to white papers about a search, content processing or analytics. These reports are prepared for a client. The approach is objective and we include information that makes these documents suitable for the client’s marketing and sales efforts. Clients work closely with the Beyond Search professional to help ensure that the message is on target and clear. Rates are set to be within reach of organizations regardless of their size.

You can get coverage in this or one of our other information services, but we charge for our time. Stated another way: If you want a story about you, your company, or your product, you will be expected to write a check or pay via PayPal. We do not do news. We do this. (emphasis added to the first paragraph)

For some reason, I would have expected Stephen E. Arnold to reach more than …between one and three people each month. That sounds low to me. 😉

The line: “We do not do news.” Makes me wonder what the University of Southhampton paid to have a four page document described as a “dissertation.” See: New Paper: Linked Data Strategy for Global Identity. Or for that matter, what will it cost to get into “The Trend Point?”

Thoughts?

April 9, 2012

The Database Nirvana (And an Alternative)

Filed under: Database,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 4:31 pm

The Database Nirvana

Alex Popescu of myNoSQL sides with Jim Webber in thinking we need to avoid a “winner-takes-it-all-war” among database advocates.

Saying that people should pick the best store for their data model is a nice sentiment but I rather doubt it will change long or short term outcomes between competing data stores.

I don’t know that anything will but I do have a concrete suggestion that might stand a chance in the short run at any rate.

We are all familiar with the “to many eyes all bugs are shallow” and other Ben Franklin like sayings.

OK, so rather than seeing another dozen or two dozen or more, data stores this year, that is 2012, why not pick an existing store, learn the community and offer your talents, writing code, tests, debugging, creating useful documentation, creating tutorials, etc.

The data store community, if you look for database projects at Sourceforge for example, is like a professional sports league with too many teams. The talent is so spread out that there are only one or two very successful teams and the others, well, are not so great.

If all of the existing data store projects picked up another 100 volunteers each, there would be enough good code, documentation and other resources to hold off both major/minor vendors and other store projects.

The various store projects would have to welcome volunteers. That means doing more than protesting the way it is done is the best possible way for whatever to be done.

If we don’t continue to have a rich ecosystem of store projects, it won’t be entirely the fault of vendors nor winner-take-it-all-wars. A lack of volunteers and acceptance of volunteers will share part of the blame.

March 31, 2012

14 Ways to Contribute to Solr without Being a Programming Genius or a Rock Star

Filed under: Open Source,Solr — Patrick Durusau @ 4:10 pm

14 Ways to Contribute to Solr without Being a Programming Genius or a Rock Star

Andy Lester started the “14 Ways” view of projects with: 14 Ways to Contribute to Open Source without Being a Programming Genius or a Rock Star.

Andy opened with:

Open source software has changed computing and the world, and many of you would love to contribute. Unfortunately, many people are daunted by what they imagine is a high barrier to entry into a project. I commonly hear people say that they’d love to contribute but can’t because of three reasons:

  • “I’m not a very good programmer.”
  • “I don’t have much time to put into it.”
  • “I don’t know what project to work on.”

There are three core principles to remember as you look for opportunities to contribute:

  • Projects need contributions from everyone of all skills and levels of expertise.
  • The smallest of contributions is still more than none.
  • The best project to start working on is one that you use already.

The most damaging idea that I’ve observed among open source newbies is that to contribute to open source, you have to be some sort of genius programmer. This is not true. Certainly, there are those in the open source world who are seen as rock stars, and they may certainly be genius programmers. However, the vast majority of us are not. We’re just people who get stuff done. Sometimes we do a little, and sometimes we do a lot. Sometimes it’s programming, and sometimes it’s not.

Most of what makes open source work is actual work, time spent making things happen for the project. Most of these things don’t require the brains or vision of a Larry Wall, creator of Perl, or a David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Rails. Designing a new language or a web framework may take inspiration, but the rest of what makes projects like Perl and Rails successful is perspiration. This work may not get all the glory, but it’s still necessary, and after a while, your contributions will get noticed.

What other projects merit a “14 Ways” post?

February 17, 2012

FOSDEM Videos

Filed under: Conferences,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 5:05 pm

FOSDEM – 2012 – First videos uploaded!

Some of the videos for FOSDEM 2012 have been uploaded with more on the way. So check back or watch for announcements.

I was delighted to find that the video server, http://video.fosdem.org/ has videos going back to 2005!

I don’t know that a FOSDEM video would be a real crowd pleaser at your house but you won’t know unless you ask. 😉

January 2, 2012

Open Source As Dumping Ground?

Filed under: Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 9:11 am

Cynthia Murrell in Big Loss Department: HP Open Sources WebOS points to Neil McAllister’s story, How HP and Open Source Can Save WebOS which says in part:

HP’s press release offers few specifics. We don’t know which open source license (or licenses) it plans to use for WebOS or what form the project’s governance will take. To its credit, HP says it is “committed to good, transparent, and inclusive governance to avoid fragmentation of the platform.” What it hasn’t said, however, is how committed it is to ongoing WebOS development.

Unfortunately, the answer might be “not very.” A month ago, HP wasn’t talking about open source; it was trying to sell off its whole Palm division, WebOS and all. Rumored bidders included Intel and Qualcomm. The catch: Any buyer would have had to agree to license WebOS back to HP at a deep discount. It seems HP may only be truly committed to the platform if it can offload the cost of developing and maintaining it.

Yet if that’s what HP hopes to achieve by opening the WebOS source, it’s bound to be disappointed. Most open source projects rely on dedicated developers to set their tone and direction, not casual contributors, and effective management of an active open source community can be difficult, time-consuming, and expensive.

I mention this as a cautionary tale about commercial products, whose sponsors suddenly “see the light” about open source software and decided to donate software to open source projects.

As the various NoSQL databases and other semantic technologies shake out over the next several years, we are likely to see more “donations” of software products. Which may be a good thing if the donating companies contribute expertise and resources to help make those projects a benefit to the entire community.

On the other hand, donating software products that fracture and drain the resources of the open source community aren’t doing the community any favors.

It would be less distracting if they would simply donate the source code and any relevant patents under an Apache license to a public repository. If there is any benefit to the open source community, someone will pick it up and run with it. If not, the open source community is not the loser.

December 17, 2011

Open Source News: “Hating Microsoft/IBM/Oracle/etc is not a strategy”

Filed under: Open Source,RDF,Topic Maps — Patrick Durusau @ 7:55 pm

Publishing News: “Hating Amazon is not a strategy”

Sorry, the parallels to the open source community and the virgins, hermits and saints that regularly abuse the vendors who support most of the successful open source projects, either directly or indirectly, was just too obvious to pass up. Apologies to Don Linn for stealing his line.

By the same token, hating RDF isn’t a strategy either. 😉

Which is why I have come to think that RDF instances should be consumed and processed as seems most appropriate to the situation. RDF is just another data format and what we make of it is an answer to be documented as part of our processing of that data. Just as any other data source. Most of which are not going to be RDF.

December 6, 2011

White House to open source Data.gov as open government data platform

Filed under: eGov,Government Data,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 8:10 pm

White House to open source Data.gov as open government data platform by Alex Howard.

From the post:

As 2011 comes to an end, there are 28 international open data platforms in the open government community. By the end of 2012, code from new “Data.gov-in-a-box” may help many more countries to stand up their own platforms. A partnership between the United States and India on open government has borne fruit: progress on making the open data platform Data.gov open source.

In a post this morning at the WhiteHouse.gov blog, federal CIO Steven VanRoekel (@StevenVDC) and federal CTO Aneesh Chopra (@AneeshChopra) explained more about how Data.gov is going global:

As part of a joint effort by the United States and India to build an open government platform, the U.S. team has deposited open source code — an important benchmark in developing the Open Government Platform that will enable governments around the world to stand up their own open government data sites.

The development is evidence that the U.S. and India are indeed still collaborating on open government together, despite India’s withdrawal from the historic Open Government Partnership (OGP) that launched in September. Chopra and VanRoekel explicitly connected the move to open source Data.gov to the U.S. involvement in the Open Government Partnership today. While we’ll need to see more code and adoption to draw substantive conclusions on the outcomes of this part of the plan, this is clearly progress.

Data.gov in a boxThe U.S. National Action Plan on Open Government, which represents the U.S. commitment to the OGP, included some details about this initiative two months ago, building upon a State Department fact sheet that was released in July. Back in August, representatives from India’s National Informatics Center visited the United States for a week-long session of knowledge sharing with the U.S. Data.gov team, which is housed within the General Services Administration.

“The secretary of state and president have both spent time in India over the past 18 months,” said VanRoekel in an interview today. “There was a lot of dialogue about the power of open data to shine light upon what’s happening in the world.”

The project, which was described then as “Data.gov-in-a-box,” will include components of the Data.gov open data platform and the India.gov.in document portal. Now, the product is being called the “Open Government Platform” — not exactly creative, but quite descriptive and evocative of open government platforms that have been launched to date. The first collection of open source code, which describes a data management system, is now up on GitHub.

During the August meetings, “we agreed upon a set of things we would do around creating excellence around an open data platform,” said VanRoekel. “We owned the first deliverable: a dataset management tool. That’s the foundation of an open source data platform. It handles workflow, security and the check in of data — all of the work that goes around getting the state data needs to be in before it goes online. India owns the next phase: the presentation layer.”

If the initiative bears fruit in 2012, as planned, the international open government data movement will have a new tool to apply toward open data platforms. That could be particularly relevant to countries in the developing world, given the limited resources available to many governments.

What’s next for open government data in the United States has yet to be written. “The evolution of data.gov should be one that does things to connect to web services or an API key manager,” said VanRoekel. “We need to track usage. We’re going to double down on the things that are proving useful.”

Interests which already hold indexes of government documents should find numerous opportunities when government platforms provide opportunities for mapping into agency data as part of open government platforms.

November 23, 2011

Black Duck Software Joins GENIVI Alliance

Filed under: Marketing,Open Source,Topic Maps — Patrick Durusau @ 7:44 pm

Black Duck Software Joins GENIVI Alliance

From the post:

Black Duck Software, the leader in open source software knowledge, adoption and governance, today announced it has joined the GENIVI Alliance as an Associate Member. Black Duck will work with the GENIVI Alliance to provide open source compliance strategy, program development and training to Alliance members, which include top automakers and automotive software suppliers.

The GENIVI Alliance is an automotive and consumer electronics industry association driving the development and adoption of an open in-vehicle infotainment (IVI) reference platform. Among the Alliance’s goals are the delivery of a reusable, open source IVI platform consisting of Linux-based core services, middleware and open application layer interfaces; development and support of an open source community of IVI developers; and training and support programs to help software developers create compliant IVI applications.

I would think that infotainment for vehicles would need topic maps as much as any other information stream.

Not to mention that getting on the inside track with someone like Black Duck could not hurt topic maps. 😉

More from the post:

About Black Duck Software

Black Duck Software is the leading provider of strategy, products and services for automating the management, governance and secure use of open source software, at enterprise scale, in a multi-source development process. Black Duck enables companies to shorten time-to-solution and reduce development costs while mitigating the management, compliance and security challenges associated with open source software. Black Duck Software powers Koders.com, the industry’s leading code search engine for open source, and Ohloh.net, the largest free public directory of open source software and a vibrant web community of free and open source software developers and users. Black Duck is among the 500 largest software companies in the world, according to Softwaremag.com. For more information, visit www.blackducksoftware.com.

About GENIVI Alliance

GENIVI Alliance is a non-profit industry association whose mission is to drive the broad adoption of an In-Vehicle Infotainment (IVI) open source development platform. GENIVI will accomplish this by aligning requirements, delivering reference implementations, offering certification programs and fostering a vibrant open source IVI community. GENIVI’s work will result in shortened development cycles, quicker time-to-market, and reduced costs for companies developing IVI equipment and software. GENIVI is headquartered in San Ramon, Calif. www.genivi.org.

Do bear in mind that koders.com searches about 3.3+ billion lines of open source code. I am sure you can think of ways topic maps could improve that search experience.

July 10, 2011

YouTube on Oracle’s Exadata?

Filed under: BigData,Open Source,SQL — Patrick Durusau @ 3:40 pm

Big data vs. traditional databases: Can you reproduce YouTube on Oracle’s Exadata?

Review of a report by Cowen & Co. analyst Peter Goldmacher on Big Data and traditional relational database vendors. Goldmacher is quoted as saying:

We believe the vast majority of data growth is coming in the form of data sets that are not well suited for traditional relational database vendors like Oracle. Not only is the data too unstructured and/or too voluminous for a traditional RDBMS, the software and hardware costs required to crunch through these new data sets using traditional RDBMS technology are prohibitive. To capitalize on the Big Data trend, a new breed of Big Data companies has emerged, leveraging commodity hardware, open source and proprietary technology to capture and analyze these new data sets. We believe the incumbent vendors are unlikely to be a major force in the Big Data trend primarily due to pricing issues and not a lack of technical know-how.

I doubt traditional relational database vendors like Oracle are going to be sitting targets for “…a new breed of Big Data companies….”

True, the “new breed” companies come without some of the licensing costs of traditional vendors, but licensing costs are only one factor in choosing a vendor.

The administrative and auditing requirements for large government contracts, for example, are likely only to be met by large traditional vendors.

And it is the skill with which Big Data is analyzed that makes it of interest to a customer. Skills that traditional vendors have in depth to bring to commodity hardware and open source technology.

Oracle, for example, could slowly replace its licensing revenue stream with a data analysis revenue stream that “new breed” vendors would find hard to match.

Or to paraphrase Shakespeare:

NewBreed:

“I can analyze Big Data.”

Oracle:

“Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will it be meaningful?”

(Henry IV, Part 1, Act III, Scene 1)


BTW, ZDNet forgot to mention in its coverage of this story that Peter Goldmacher worked for Oracle Corporation early in his career. His research coverage entry reads in part:

He started his career at Oracle, working for six years in variety of departments including sales ops, consulting, marketing, and finance, and he has also worked at BMC Software as Director, Corporate Planning and Strategy. (Accessed 10 June 2011, 11:00 AM, East Coast Time)


In the interest of fairness, I should point out that after Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems, they have sponsored my work as the OpenDocument Format (ODF) editor. I don’t speak on behalf of Oracle with regard to ODF, much less its other ventures. Their sponsorship simply enables me to devote time to the ODF project.

February 25, 2011

Producing Open Source Software

Filed under: Collaboration,Open Source — Patrick Durusau @ 5:18 pm

Producing Open Source Software

I can’t imagine why my digital page turning should have leap to “Handling Difficult People,” but it did. 😉

Actually just skimming the TOC, this looks like a good book for any open source project.

My question to you, once you have had a chance to read it, could the title also be:

Producing Open Source Topic Maps?

Why/Why Not?

Seems to me that the topic maps community could be more collaborative than it is.

I am sure others feel the same way, so why doesn’t it happen more often?

« Newer Posts

Powered by WordPress