In the debate over Data 3.0 (a Manifesto for Platform Agnostic Structured Data) Update 1, Kingsley Idehen has noted the lack of widespread adoption of semantic technologies.
Everyone prefers their own world view. We see some bright, shiny future if everyone else, at their expense, would adopt our view of the world. That hasn’t been persuasive.
And why should it be? What motivation do I have to change how I process/encode my data, in the hopes that if everyone else in my field does the same thing, then at some unknown future point, I will have some unquantifiable advantage over how I process data now?
I am not advocating that everyone adopt XTM syntax or the TMDM as a data model. Just as there are an infinite number of semantics there are an infinite number of ways to map and combine those semantics. I am advocating a disclosed mapping strategy that enables others to make meaningful use of the resulting maps.
Let’s take a concrete case.
The Christmas Day “attack” by a terrorist who set his pants on fire (Christmas Day Attack Highlights US Intelligence Failures) illustrates a failure to share intelligence data.
One strategy, the one most likely to fail, is the development of a common data model for sharing intelligence data. The Guide to Sources of Information for Intelligence Officers, Analysts, and Investigators, Updated gives you a feel for the scope of such a project. (100+ pages listing sources of intelligence data)
A disclosed mapping strategy for the integration of intelligence data would enable agencies to keep their present systems, data structures, interfaces, etc.
Disclosing the basis for mapping, whatever the target (such as RDF), will mean that users can combine the resulting map with other data. Or not. But it will be a meaningful choice. A far saner (and more cost effective) strategy than a common data model.
Semantic diversity is our strength. So why not play to our strength, rather than against it?