Image by dkuropatwa via Flickr

What’s the difference between Taxonomies and Ontologies? – Ask Dr. Search .

A Reader Asks:

What’s the difference between Taxonomies and Ontologies? And do I even need to care !?

Editor’s Note: For basic definitions of the terms in this article please see our online glossary of terms.

Dr. Search Responds,

Wow, that’s a great question! I know how *I* would answer it, but believe it or not these subjects can be very controversial in some academic circles, so I decided to consult with a few other search experts. Like any good doctor I don’t hesitate to consult with others, so I chatted with Avi Rappaport (SearchTools), Walter Underwood (Netflix and Ultraseek fame), Ross Leher at WAND, and Rennie Walker (of Wells Fargo and SageWare). What I present here are the aggregated opinions. I’ll also throw in a few other terms at the end either overlap are otherwise related.

I’d summarize the similarities and differences this way:

1: For casual users, these are very similar concepts. Purists have many reasons to treat them as separate disciplines, and we’re not disagreeing with that, but I’m just saying that when a mere mortal is shopping for tools or consultants for either, I’d search for both terms on the web, and treat them initially as synonyms for each other. To be safe, you might want to include the singular and plural form of both; depending on your search engine you might actually do taxonomy OR taxonomies OR ontology OR ontologies – not necessary on more modern search engines.

2: The preference for one term over another (ontology vs. taxonomy) seems to also depend on the group that’s discussing it. “Ontologies” seems to be preferred by academics and deep researchers, while “taxonomies” are almost universally used in the commercial space.

Continues @ http://www.ideaeng.com/

Related articles by Zemanta

• FUMSI – Becoming a Taxonomist: Real Life Stories (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)
• Social Tagging – Questions Answered on Correction Tools and Vendors (digitalassetmanagement.org.uk)

Image via Wikipedia

The Forrester Blog For Technology Product Management & Marketing Professionals.

Here’s an important rule of thumb, if you’re a researcher such as myself: Don’t name something unless it really exists. That sounds fairly obvious, but unfortunately, in the history of the technology industry, there’s a sad history of failed neologisms. In some cases, these phrases exaggerated the importance or complexity of some relatively mundane aspect of the world. That’s how the superheated usage of the term knowledge management turned into a four letter word. In other cases, people use neologisms designed to describe things that might (or might not) exist in the future as if they already existed now. I’ve heard some presentations about the Semantic Web that certainly fall into that category.

Therefore, when I use a phrase like social product management, believe me, I’m using it very carefully. Over the course of the last week, I’ve had occasion to use it on several occasions, most recently at last night’s open house for PMs in the Forrester Foster City office. (Thanks to all who attended, by the way.)

Social product management passes the sniff test for neologisms because it describes something that’s really happening: social media are changing the way that product managers and product marketers work. Here are a few manifestations, excerpted from the research I’ve been doing for the last several months:

Continues @ http://blogs.forrester.com

Six Social Media Trends for 2010 – BusinessWeek.

In 2009 we saw exponential growth of social media. According to Nielsen Online, Twitter alone grew 1,382% year-over-year in February, registering a total of just more than 7 million unique visitors in the US for the month. Meanwhile, Facebook continued to outpace MySpace. So what could social media look like in 2010? In 2010, social media will get even more popular, more mobile, and more exclusive—at least, that’s my guess. What are the near-term trends we could see as soon as next year? In no particular order:

1. Social media begins to look less social

With groups, lists and niche networks becoming more popular, networks could begin to feel more “exclusive.” Not everyone can fit on someone’s newly created Twitter list and as networks begin to fill with noise, it’s likely that user behavior such as “hiding” the hyperactive updaters that appear in your Facebook news feed may become more common. Perhaps it’s not actually less social, but it might seem that way as we all come to terms with getting value out of our networks—while filtering out the clutter.

Continues @ http://www.businessweek.com

Image via Wikipedia

Semantic Technology Blog: Linked Open Data : Can we learn anything from failure of many B2B Exchanges?.

“You can’t stop an idea whose time has come!” Linked data seems to be that idea in the grand vision of Semantic Web! The growth of Linked data cloud always reminds you that we are in exponential times! The Semantic technology community, including me, believes that Linked Data is the best thing happened to the Semantic Web vision. It makes sense and it is the next step for web and can also contribute significantly, if done right, to the evolution of this civilization. The possibilities are endless! We also have one of the best brains behind this initiative.

Whenever I hear Metcalfe’s law (byBob Metcalfe) , in context of Linked data, which states that “the value of the network is proportional to the square of the connected users of the system” then it always reminds me of those early B2B days during late 90s when the world was about to change. Metcalfe law was very popular during those times also! B2B exchanges were considered the pillars of the new economy and their valuations made us lose our sleep. It seemed to all of us that everything was going to be re-defined and we wanted to be part of it. Well, it didn’t happen exactly as we were led to believe! Despite the differences between B2B and Linkedata like one is trasactional and other is knowledge oriented, privately owned vs free, different technologies, different era etc., there are some similarities in both of them. Lets do some introspection so that we don’t repeat some of those mistakes!

Continues @ http://priyankmohan.blogspot.com

Update: The leaked European Commission memo is now online

Negotiations on the highly controversial Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement start in a few hours in Seoul, South Korea. This week’s closed negotiations will focus on “enforcement in the digital environment.” Negotiators will be discussing the Internet provisions drafted by the US government. No text has been officially released but as Professor Michael Geist and IDG are reporting, leaks have surfaced. The leaks confirm everything that we feared about the secret ACTA negotiations. The Internet provisions have nothing to do with addressing counterfeit products, but are all about imposing a set of copyright industry demands on the global Internet, including obligations on ISPs to adopt Three Strikes Internet disconnection policies, and a global expansion of DMCA-style TPM laws.

As expected, the Internet provisions will go beyond existing international treaty obligations and follow the language of Article 18.10.30 of the recent U.S. – South Korea Free Trade Agreement. We see three points of concern.

First, according to the leaks, ACTA member countries will be required to provide for third-party (Internet Intermediary) liability. This is not required by any of the major international IP treaties – not by the 1994 Trade Related Aspects of IP agreement, nor the WIPO Copyright and WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty. However, US copyright owners have long sought this. (For instance, see page 19 of the Industry Functional Advisory Committee report on the 2003 US- Singapore Free Trade Agreement noting the need for introducing a system of ISP liability). (Previously available at http://www.ustr.gov/new/fta/Singapore/advisor_reports.htm.)

Second and more importantly, ACTA will include some limitations on Internet Intermediary liability. Many ACTA negotiating countries already have these regimes in place: the US, EU, Australia, Japan, South Korea. To get the benefit of the ACTA safe harbors, Internet intermediaries will need to follow notice and takedown regimes, and put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of allegedly copyright infringing content.

However, contrary to current US law and practice, the US text apparently conditions the safe harbors on Internet intermediaries adopting a Graduated Response or Three Strikes policy. IDG reports that:

“The U.S. wants ACTA to force ISPs to “put in place policies to deter unauthorized storage and transmission of IP infringing content (for example clauses in customers’ contracts allowing a graduated response),” according to the [leaked European] Commission memo

Continues @ Leaked ACTA Internet Provisions: Three Strikes and a Global DMCA | Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Obama Administration Secret Proposal On Copyright Puts ISP At Center Of Debate (themoderatevoice.com)
• United States Pushing International, Mandatory Copyright Laws. Guilty Until Proven Innocent! (crooksandliars.com)
• European Union Takes Its Own Network Neutrality Stance (siliconangle.net)

The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting the Pieces Together
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/

Related articles by Zemanta

• Leaked text of secret copyright treaty vs. bland bureaucratic press-release describing same (boingboing.net)
• Secret copyright treaty leaks. It’s bad. Very bad. (boingboing.net)
• Secret Copyright Treaty Leaks. It’s Bad. Very Bad. (yro.slashdot.org)
• More on secret copyright treaty: your kids could go to jail for noncommercial music sharing (boingboing.net)
• Will the copyright treaty take us back to Web 1.0? (doctorrw.blogspot.com)

Paul Quigley , Editor-in-Chief spoke with the CEO of FatWire Software Yogesh Gupta about the prospects for the content market, as well as tackling the key issues around integration of content platforms and digital asset management, as well as social media and FatWire’s determination to remain agile and independent as it enters new markets, especially the BRIC states.

Yogesh Gupta CEO at FatWire

Implementing a Digital Asset Management System: For Animation, Computer Games, and Web Development

Expanding a Digital Content Management System: for the Growing Digital Media Enterprise (NAB Executive Technology Briefings)

Digital Rights Management: Protecting and Monetizing Content (NAB Executive Technology Briefings)

Digital Rights Management: Business and Technology (Professional Mindware)

A list of all the DAM related books can be found here

Thanks for the heads up Henrik

Enterprise 2.0 is a Crock: Discuss : Andrew McAfee’s Blog.

Always-opinionated blogger Dennis Howlett put up a post at ZDNet last week titled “Enterprise 2.0: What a Crock.” I don’t agree, but I do commend Howlett for making a couple important points and raising a question that really matters.

One of his important points, to my eyes, is that:

“Like it or not, large enterprises – the big name brands – have to work in structures and hierarchies that most E2.0 mavens ridicule but can’t come up with alternatives that make any sort of corporate sense.”

I’d use the word ’some’ instead of ‘most,’ but I applaud Howlett for pointing out that certain E2.0 enthusiasts adopt the language of revolutionaries. They rail against the old corporate order and proclaim that they’re working for its downfall. They portray hierarchy, standardization, and management as enemies of innovation, creativity, and value creation. And they maintain that E2.0 is an unstoppable force that will only gain power as Millennials enter the workforce and that resistance to it is, ultimately, futile.

All of which is both unhelpful and wrong. It’s unhelpful because such rhetoric has the effect of increasing resistance to E2.0 among people who really need to be on board. If you’re a manager within a stable hierarchy and you get wind of a movement that aims to eliminate management and hierarchy (and stability!), you’re almost certainly going to oppose it.

Continues @  Enterprise 2.0 is a Crock: Discuss : Andrew McAfee’s Blog.

Competition to provide document management in the cloud is always fairly stiff, but with the addition of CyanGate’s S-Dive to Salesforce.com’s (news, site) AppExchange, it’s likely to get even stiffer.

What this new partnership will do is to give companies that sign up for a single company account with AppExchange unlimited space in the Amazon cloud to store content of any kind and share it by simply downloading it from within the Salesforce.com platform.

There really doesn’t seem to be any catch here with both companies saying that while the amount of information users can store is limitless, so are the types of files they can store, enabling users to upload all kinds of rich media as well as all their marketing and business related documents.

Continues @  SalesForce Adds Unlimited Document Management with S-Drive.