Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 24 2014

09:09

Highlights of the 1st Meetup on Question Answering Systems – Leipzig, November 21st

On November 21st, AKSW group was hosting the 1st meetup on “Question Answering” (QA) systems. In this meeting, researchers from AKSW/University of Leipzig, CITEC/University of Bielefeld, Fraunhofer IAIS/University of BonDERI/National University of Ireland and the University of Passau presented the recent results of their work on QA systems. The following themes were discussed during the meeting:

  • Ontology-driven QA on the Semantic Web. Christina Unger presented Pythia system for ontology-based QA. Slides are available here.
  • Distributed Semantic Models for achieving scalability & consistency on QA. André Freitas presented TREO and EasyESA which employ vector-based approach for semantic approximation.
  • Template-based QA. Jens Lehmann presented TBSL for Template-based Question Answering over RDF Data.
  • Keyword-based QA. Saeedeh Shekarpour presented SINA approach for semantic interpretation of user queries for QA on interlinked data.
  • Hybrid QA over Linked Data. Ricardo Usbeck presented HAWK for hybrid question answering using Linked Data and full-text indizes.
  • Semantic Parsing with Combinatory Categorial Grammars (CCG). Sherzod Hakimov. Slides are available here.
  • QA on statistical Linked Data. Konrad Höffner presented LinkedSpending and RDF Data Cube vocabulary to apply QA on statistical Linked Data.
  • WDAqua (Web Data and Question Answering) project. Christoph Lange presented the WDAqua project which is part of the EU’s Marie Skłodowska-Curie Action Innovative Training Networks. WDAqua focuses on answering different aspects of the question, “how can we answer complex questions with web data?”
  • OKBQA (Open Knowledge Base & Question-Answering). Axel-C. Ngonga Ngomo presented OKBQA which aims to bring cutting edge experts in knowledge base construction and application in order to create an extensive architecture for QA systems which has no restriction on programming languages.
  • Open QA. Edgard Marx presented open source question answering framework that unifies QA approaches from several domain experts.

The meetup decided to meet biannually to fuse efforts. All agreed upon investigating existing architecture for question answering systems to be able to offer a promising, collaborative architecture for future endeavours. Join us next time! For more information contact Ricardo Usbeck.

Ali and Ricardo on behalf of the QA meetup

November 21 2014

15:39

New Template for CKAN Extensions

We’ve just merged a new template for CKAN extensions. Whenever you create a new CKAN extension using the paster --plugin=ckan create -t ckanext ... command (as documented in the writing extensions tutorial) it’ll now use the new template, which gives you:

  • PyPI integration – setup.py and MANIFEST.in files are automatically generated for your extension, ready for publishing to PyPI
  • A tests directory including stub tests for you to get started writing tests for your extension
  • Travis CI integration – automatically run your tests in a clean environment each time you push a new commit to GitHub. A .travis.yml file and build and run scripts are automatically generated for your extension, you still need to log in to Travis and click the switch to turn on Travis for your extension though.
  • Coveralls.io integration – track the code coverage of your tests. A .coveragerc file is automatically generated for your extension. Again, you still need to login to Coveralls and turn it on.
  • A .gitignore file
  • A LICENSE file (uses the GNU AGPL by default)
  • A reStructuredText README file with a skeleton documentation structure including generated installation and configuration instructions, how to run the tests, etc
  • Travis, Coveralls and pypip.in README badges! Show the world that you have continuous integration, good test coverage, PyPI downloads, and your extension’s supported Python version, development status and license.

Screenshot from 2014-11-21 16:26:14

For an example of an extension built using this template, look at ckanext-deadoralive.

What we’re trying to do with this new template is:

  1. Save ourselves time, by not having to manually create all of this boilerplate every time we roll a new CKAN extension
  2. Help improve the quality of CKAN extensions by encouraging developers to write good tests and documentation, and to use services PyPI, Travis and Coveralls

More to come. If you have any ideas for things to add to the CKAN extension template, let us know on ckan-dev

November 20 2014

09:08

Announcing GERBIL: General Entity Annotator Benchmark Framework

Dear all,

We are happy to announce GERBIL – a General Entity Annotation Benchmark Framework, a demo can be found at! With GERBIL, we aim to establish a highly available, easy quotable and liable focal point for Named Entity Recognition and Named Entity Disambiguation (Entity Linking) evaluations:

  • GERBIL provides persistent URLs for experimental settings. By these means, GERBIL also addresses the problem of archiving experimental results.
  • The results of GERBIL are published in a human-readable as well as a machine-readable format. By these means, we also tackle the problem of reproducibility.
  • GERBIL provides 11 different datasets and 9 different entity annotators. Please talk to us if you want to add yours.

To ensure that the GERBIL framework is useful to both end users and tool developers, its architecture and interface were designed with the following principles in mind:

  • Easy integration of annotators: We provide a web-based interface that allows annotators to be evaluated via their NIF-based REST interface. We provide a small NIF library for an easy implementation of the interface.
  • Easy integration of datasets: We also provide means to gather datasets for evaluation directly from data services such as DataHub.
  • Extensibility: GERBIL is provided as an open-source platform that can be extended by members of the community both to new tasks and different purposes.
  • Diagnostics: The interface of the tool was designed to provide developers with means to easily detect aspects in which their tool(s) need(s) to be improved.
  • Portability of results: We generate human- and machine-readable results to ensure maximum usefulness and portability of the results generated by our framework.

We are looking for your feedback!

Best regards,

Ricardo Usbeck for The GERBIL Team

November 19 2014

21:19

Zemanta & Distil Partner to Protect Content Ad Campaigns from Fraud

Bad Bots might be great villains in sci-fi, but they certainly don’t belong in our clients’ content amplification campaigns

against_bots2

As a Content DSP, Zemanta brings programmatic to native-content advertising. Since launching our first content marketing solution in 2007, the Zemanta Editorial Network, we have worked diligently to ensure our clients campaigns are free of fraud.  We now bring that same diligence to our first-of-a-kind Content DSP, where we help brands promote their content across virtually the entire paid content ecosystem.

As a DSP, our first step in ensuring quality traffic is to work with quality networks and platforms working with leaders like Yahoo!, Outbrain, AdiantIAC/nRelate and AOL/Gravity. But we know that fraud is out there, so we don’t stop there.

Today we are happy to announce we are partnering with Distil Networks, a leader in ad fraud protection, to take the next step in ensuring bad actors play no role in our clients’ content campaigns. We chose to partner and integrate Distil’s anti-fraud technology into our content advertising platform because we were impressed by Distil’s core product experience, which has been used across hundreds of millions of impressions and dozens of publishers. Together, we are determined to keep fraudsters and their bots out of the content marketing business. “Distil is excited to extend its solution further into the online marketing and advertising industry by working with Zemanta, a market leader in content marketing promotion & distribution, to ensure that advertisers are not paying for bot views and bot clicks – just humans”, said Charlie Minesinger, Distil’s Director of Channel Partners.

Good robots help you navigate your X-wing fighter. They don’t steal your marketing dollars. #173379363 / gettyimages.com

We’re happy to be working with Distil to stop the bad bots from ruining great content ad campaigns and we are desperately waiting for an R2 unit to help with the evening commute. To learn more about how Zemanta can help you succeed with content marketing you can read more here or drop us a line at partners@zemanta.com.

November 17 2014

14:29

@BioASQ challenge gaining momentum

BioASQ is a series of challenges aiming to bring us closer to the vision of machines that can answer questions of biomedical professionals and researchers. The second BioASQ challenge started in February 2013. It comprised two different tasks: Large-scale biomedical semantic indexing (Task 2a), and biomedical semantic question answering (Task 2b).

In total 216 users and 142 systems registered to the automated evaluation system of BioASQ in order to participate in the challenge; 28 teams (with 95 systems) finally submitted their suggested solutions and answers. The final results were presented at the BioASQ workshop in the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF), which took place between September 23 and 26 in Sheffield, U.K.

The Awards Went To The Following Teams

Task 2a (Large-scale biomedical semantic indexing):

  • Fudan University (China)
  • NCBI (USA)
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece) and atypon.com (USA)

Task 2b (Biomedical semantic question answering):

  • Fudan University (China)
  • NCBI (USA)
  • University of Alberta (Canada)
  • Seoul National University (South Korea)
  • Toyota Technological Institute (Japan)
  • Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (Greece) and atypon.com (USA)

Best Overall Contribution:

  • NCBI (USA)
The second BioASQ competition, challenge continued the impressive achievements of the first one, pushing the research frontiers in biomedical indexing and question answering. The systems that participated in both tasks of the challenge achieved a notable increase in accuracy over the first year. Among the highlights is the fact that the best systems in task 2a outperformed again the very strong baseline MTI system provided by NLM. This is despite the fact that the MTI system itself has been improved by incorporating ideas proposed by last year’s winning systems. The end of the second challenge marks also the end of the financial support for BioASQ, by the European Commission. We would like to take this opportunity to thank the EC for supporting our vision. The main project results (incl. frameworks, datasets and publications) can be found at the project showcase page at http://bioasq.org/project/showcase.
Nevertheless, the BioASQ challenge will continue with its third round BioASQ3, which will start in February 2015. Stay tuned!

About BioASQ

The BioASQ team combines researchers with complementary expertise from 6 organisations in 3 countries: the Greek National Center for Scientific Research “Demokritos” (coordinator), participating with its Institutes of ‘Informatics & Telecommunications’ and ‘Biosciences & Applications’, the German IT company Transinsight GmbH, the French University Joseph Fourier, the German research Group for Agile Knowledge Engineering and Semantic Web at the University of Leipzig, the French University Pierre et Marie Curie‐Paris 6 and the Department of Informatics of the Athens University of Economics and Business in Greece (visit the BioASQ project partners page). Moreover, biomedical experts from several countries assist in the creation of the evaluation data and a number of key players in the industry and academia from around the world participate in the advisory board of the project.
BioASQ started in October 2012 and was funded for two years by the European Commission as a support action (FP7/2007-2013: Intelligent Information Management, Targeted Competition Framework; grant agreement n° 318652). More information can be found at: http://www.bioasq.org.
Project Coordinator: George Paliouras (paliourg@iit.demokritos.gr).
08:27
Interview of Alexandre Figuiere, EXALEAD representative at the After Market Conference

November 13 2014

21:19

LDBC: Making Semantic Publishing Execution Rules

LDBC SPB (Semantic Publishing Benchmark) is based on the BBC Linked Data use case. Thus the data modeling and transaction mix reflect the BBC's actual utilization of RDF. But a benchmark is not only a condensation of current best practice. The BBC Linked Data is deployed on Ontotext GraphDB (formerly known as OWLIM).

So, in SPB we wanted to address substantially more complex queries than the lookups than the BBC linked data deployment primarily serves. Diverse dataset summaries, timelines, and faceted search qualified by keywords and/or geography, are examples of online user experience that SPB needs to cover.

SPB is not an analytical workload, per se, but we still find that the queries fall broadly in two categories:

  • Some queries are centered on a particular search or entity. The data touched by the query size does not grow at the same rate as the dataset.
  • Some queries cover whole cross sections of the dataset, e.g., find the most popular tags across the whole database.
These different classes of questions need to be separated in a metric, otherwise the short lookup dominates at small scales, and the large query at large scales.

Another guiding factor of SPB was the BBC's and others' express wish to cover operational aspects such as online backups, replication, and fail-over in a benchmark. True, most online installations have to deal with these, yet these things are as good as absent from present benchmark practice. We will look at these aspects in a different article; for now, I will just discuss the matter of workload mix and metric.

Normally, the lookup and analytics workloads are divided into different benchmarks. Here, we will try something different. There are three things the benchmark does:

  • Updates - These sometimes insert a graph, sometimes delete and re-insert the same graph, sometimes just delete a graph. These are logarithmic to data size.

  • Short queries - These are lookups that most often touch on recent data and can drive page impressions. These are roughly logarithmic to data scale.

  • Analytics - These cover a large fraction of the dataset and are roughly linear to data size.

A test sponsor can decide on the query mix within certain bounds. A qualifying run must sustain a minimum, scale-dependent update throughput and must execute a scale-dependent number of analytical query mixes, or run for a scale-dependent duration. The minimum update rate, the minimum number of analytics mixes and the minimum duration all grow logarithmically to data size.

Within these limits, the test sponsor can decide how to mix the workloads. Publishing several results emphasizing different aspects is also possible. A given system may be especially good at one aspect, leading the test sponsor to accentuate this.

The benchmark has been developed and tested at small scales, between 50 and 150M triples. Next we need to see how it actually scales. There we expect to see how the two query sets behave differently. One effect that we see right away when loading data is that creating the full text index on the literals is in fact the longest running part. For a SF 32 ( 1.6 billion triples) SPB database we have the following space consumption figures:

  • 46,886 MB of RDF literal text
  • 23,924 MB of full text index for RDF literals
  • 23,598 MB of URI strings
  • 21,981 MB of quads, stored column-wise with default index scheme

Clearly, applying column-wise compression to the strings is the best move for increasing scalability. The literals are individually short, so literal per literal compression will do little or nothing but applying this by the column is known to get a 2x size reduction with Google Snappy.

The full text index does not get much from column store techniques, as it already consists of words followed by space efficient lists of word positions. The above numbers are measured with Virtuoso column store, with quads column-wise and the rest row-wise. Each number includes the table(s) and any extra indices associated to them.

Let's now look at a full run at unit scale, i.e., 50M triples.

The run rules stipulate a minimum of 7 updates per second. The updates are comparatively fast, so we set the update rate to 70 updates per second. This is seen not to take too much CPU. We run 2 threads of updates, 20 of short queries, and 2 of long queries. The minimum run time for the unit scale is 10 minutes, so we do 10 analytical mixes, as this is expected to take a little over 10 minutes. The run stops by itself when the last of the analytical mixes finishes.

The interactive driver reports:

Seconds run : 2,144
    Editorial:
        2 agents

        68,164 inserts (avg :   46  ms, min :    5  ms, max :   3002  ms)
         8,440 updates (avg :   72  ms, min :   15  ms, max :   2471  ms)
         8,539 deletes (avg :   37  ms, min :    4  ms, max :   2531  ms)

        85,143 operations (68,164 CW Inserts   (98 errors), 
                            8,440 CW Updates   ( 0 errors), 
                            8,539 CW Deletions ( 0 errors))
        39.7122 average operations per second

    Aggregation:
        20 agents

        4120  Q1   queries (avg :    789  ms, min :   197  ms, max :   6,767   ms, 0 errors)
        4121  Q2   queries (avg :     85  ms, min :    26  ms, max :   3,058   ms, 0 errors)
        4124  Q3   queries (avg :     67  ms, min :     5  ms, max :   3,031   ms, 0 errors)
        4118  Q5   queries (avg :    354  ms, min :     3  ms, max :   8,172   ms, 0 errors)
        4117  Q8   queries (avg :    975  ms, min :    25  ms, max :   7,368   ms, 0 errors)
        4119  Q11  queries (avg :    221  ms, min :    75  ms, max :   3,129   ms, 0 errors)
        4122  Q12  queries (avg :    131  ms, min :    45  ms, max :   1,130   ms, 0 errors)
        4115  Q17  queries (avg :  5,321  ms, min :    35  ms, max :  13,144   ms, 0 errors)
        4119  Q18  queries (avg :    987  ms, min :   138  ms, max :   6,738   ms, 0 errors)
        4121  Q24  queries (avg :    917  ms, min :    33  ms, max :   3,653   ms, 0 errors)
        4122  Q25  queries (avg :    451  ms, min :    70  ms, max :   3,695   ms, 0 errors)

        22.5239 average queries per second. 
        Pool 0, queries [ Q1 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q8 Q11 Q12 Q17 Q18 Q24 Q25 ]


        45,318 total retrieval queries (0 timed-out)
        22.5239 average queries per second

The analytical driver reports:

    Aggregation:
        2 agents

        14    Q4   queries (avg :   9,984  ms, min :   4,832  ms, max :   17,957  ms, 0 errors)
        12    Q6   queries (avg :   4,173  ms, min :      46  ms, max :    7,843  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q7   queries (avg :   1,855  ms, min :   1,295  ms, max :    2,415  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q9   queries (avg :     561  ms, min :     446  ms, max :      662  ms, 0 errors)
        14    Q10  queries (avg :   2,641  ms, min :   1,652  ms, max :    4,238  ms, 0 errors)
        12    Q13  queries (avg :     595  ms, min :     373  ms, max :    1,167  ms, 0 errors)
        12    Q14  queries (avg :  65,362  ms, min :   6,127  ms, max :  136,346  ms, 2 errors)
        13    Q15  queries (avg :  45,737  ms, min :  12,698  ms, max :   59,935  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q16  queries (avg :  30,939  ms, min :  10,224  ms, max :   38,161  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q19  queries (avg :     310  ms, min :      26  ms, max :    1,733  ms, 0 errors)
        12    Q20  queries (avg :  13,821  ms, min :  11,092  ms, max :   15,435  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q21  queries (avg :  36,611  ms, min :  14,164  ms, max :   70,954  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q22  queries (avg :  42,048  ms, min :   7,106  ms, max :   74,296  ms, 0 errors)
        13    Q23  queries (avg :  48,474  ms, min :  18,574  ms, max :   93,656  ms, 0 errors)
        0.0862 average queries per second. 
        Pool 0, queries [ Q4 Q6 Q7 Q9 Q10 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 ]


        180 total retrieval queries (2 timed-out)
        0.0862 average queries per second

The metric would be 22.52 qi/s , 310 qa/h, 39.7 u/s @ 50Mt (SF 1)

The SUT is dual Xeon E5-2630, all in memory. The platform utilization is steadily above 2000% CPU (over 20/24 hardware threads busy on the DBMS). The DBMS is Virtuoso Open Source (v7fasttrack at github.com, feature/analytics branch).

The minimum update rate of 7/s was sustained, but fell short of the target of 70/s. In this run, most demand was put on the interactive queries. Different thread allocations would give different ratios of the metric components. The analytics mix, for example, is about 3x faster without other concurrent activity.

Is this good or bad? I would say that this is possible but better can certainly be accomplished.

The initial observation is that Q17 is the worst of the interactive lot. 3x better is easily accomplished by avoiding a basic stupidity. The query does the evil deed of checking for a substring in a URI. This is done in the wrong place and accounts for most of the time. The query is meant to test geo retrieval but ends up doing something quite different. Optimizing this right would by itself almost double the interactive score. There are some timeouts in the analytical run, which as such disqualifies the run. This is not a fully compliant result, but is close enough to give an idea of the dynamics. So we see that the experiment is definitely feasible, is reasonably defined, and that the dynamics seen make sense.

As an initial comment of the workload mix, I'd say that interactive should have a few more very short point-lookups, to stress compilation times and give a higher absolute score of queries per second.

Adjustments to the mix will depend on what we find out about scaling. As with SNB, it is likely that the workload will shift a little so this result might not be comparable with future ones.

In the next SPB article, we will look closer at performance dynamics and choke points and will have an initial impression on scaling the workload.

21:09

LDBC: Creating a Metric for SNB

In the Making It Interactive post on the LDBC blog, we were talking about composing an interactive Social Network Benchmark (SNB) metric. Now we will look at what this looks like in practice.

A benchmark is known by its primary metric. An actual benchmark implementation may deal with endless complexity but the whole point of the exercise is to reduce this all to an extremely compact form, optimally a number or two.

For SNB, we suggest clicks per second Interactive at scale (cpsI@ so many GB) as the primary metric. To each scale of the dataset corresponds a rate of update in the dataset's timeline (simulation time). When running the benchmark, the events in simulation time are transposed to a timeline in real time.

Another way of expressing the metric is therefore acceleration factor at scale. In this example, we run a 300 GB database at an acceleration of 1.64; i.e., in the present example, we did 97 minutes of simulation time in 58 minutes of real time.

Another key component of a benchmark is the full disclosure report (FDR). This is expected to enable any interested party to reproduce the experiment.

The system under test (SUT) is Virtuoso running an SQL implementation of the workload at 300 GB (SF = 300). This run gives an idea of what an official report will look like but is not one yet. The implementation differs from the present specification in the following:

  • The SNB test driver is not used. Instead, the workload is read from the file system by stored procedures on the SUT. This is done to circumvent latencies in update scheduling in the test driver which would result in the SUT not reaching full platform utilization.

  • The workload is extended by 2 short lookups, i.e., person profile view and post detail view. These are very short and serve to give the test more of an online flavor.

  • The short queries appear in the report as multiple entries. This should not be the case. This inflates the clicks per second number but does not significantly affect the acceleration factor.

As a caveat, this metric will not be comparable with future ones.

Aside from the composition of the report, the interesting point is that with the present workload, a 300 GB database keeps up with the simulation timeline on a commodity server, also when running updates. The query frequencies and run times are in the full report. We also produced a graphic showing the evolution of the throughput over a run of one hour --

ldbc-snb-qpm.png
(click to embiggen)

We see steady throughput except for some slower minutes which correspond to database checkpoints. (A checkpoint, sometimes called a log checkpoint, is the operation which makes a database state durable outside of the transaction log.) If we run updates only at full platform, we get an acceleration of about 300x in memory for 20 minutes, then 10 minutes of nothing happening while the database is being checkpointed. This is measured with 6 2TB magnetic disks. Such a behavior is incompatible with an interactive workload. But with a checkpoint every 10 minutes and updates mixed with queries, checkpointing the database does not lead to impossible latencies. Thus, we do not get the TPC-C syndrome which requires tens of disks or several SSDs per core to run.

This is a good thing for the benchmark, as we do not want to require unusual I/O systems for competition. Such a requirement would simply encourage people to ignore the specification for the point and would limit the number of qualifying results.

The full report contains the details. This is also a template for later "real" FDRs. The supporting files are divided into test implementation and system configuration. With these materials plus the data generator, one should be able to repeat the results using a Virtuoso Open Source cut from v7fasttrack at github.com, feature/analytics branch.

In later posts we will analyze the results a bit more and see how much improvement potential we find. The next SNB article will be about the business intelligence and graph analytics areas of SNB.

15:59

The Potential of Big Data Applications for the Healthcare Sector

 

At the industrial Big Data Conference Big Data Minds in Berlin, Prof. Sonja Zillner presented "The Potential of Big Data Applications for the Healthcare Sector". With the presentation of the BIG Data Public Private Forum discussed the challenges of BIG Data and the emerging Data Economy for the Healthcare Sector. In particular,  the results of the BIG user needs and requisites study for the Big Data applications in the Healthcare Sector were introduced. The study shows that Big Data technologies can be used to improve the quality and efficiency of healthcare delivery.  However, the realization of Big Data applications in the healthcare sector is challenging. In order to take advantage of the promising opportunities of Big Data technologies, a clear understanding of driver and constraints, user needs and requirements is needed.

The feedback of the audience was very good and several participants of the conference requested the access of the BIG Requirements Study.

Categories:

November 09 2014

20:01

Export Datasets from CKAN to Excel

ckanapi-exporter is a new API script that we’ve developed for exporting dataset metadata from CKAN to Excel-compatible CSV files. Check out the short presentation below, and visit ckanapi-exporter for more details:

November 04 2014

12:19

CKAN Extension Registry – Share and Find CKAN Extensions

We are happy to announce the new CKAN Extensions Registry which lists available CKAN Extensions:

http://extensions.ckan.org/

CKAN Extensions are a way to extend and alter the functionality of the base CKAN platform using the numerous extension points provided by CKAN. CKAN Extensions provide limitless possibilities from altering the site look and feel to adding site pages, from new validation methods to modifying or adding APIs.

There are currently 100 extensions already listed in the registry based on an initial survey of the extensions available “in the wild” (on github etc), and we will be adding more going forward.

CKAN Extension Registry Front Page

Add Your Extension

Instructions for adding your extension to the registry are here:

http://extensions.ckan.org/add/

All About Extensions

CKAN Extensions are a way to extend the functionality of the base CKAN platform using the numerous extension points provided by CKAN.

Support for creating CKAN Extensions was first introduced in Autumn 2010 and has been extended multiple times ever since. Until now we have collected lists of extensions on the wiki but with the growing number of Extensions it is useful to have a proper registry (an Extension registry was one of the most requested items in the Roadmap consultation).

Examples include:

Next Steps

At present, the Registry is confined to “functional” extensions which add new functionality to CKAN and are not specific to a given site.

We are considering adding a section for theme oriented and site-specific extensions (e.g. support for metadata specific to a given site) since these extensions may be useful as inspiration and instruction to others even if they are not likely to be directly installed.

10:00
BREAKFAST WITH EXALEAD DASSAULT SYSTÈMES LEADER

November 03 2014

18:12

Job offer: Technical Consultant (Data Science & Linked Data)

The Semantic Web Company (SWC) is a leading provider of software and services in the areas of Semantic Information Management and Linked Data technologies. SWC’s renowned PoolParty Software Platform is used in large enterprises, Government Organizations, NPOs and NGOs around the globe to extract meaning from big data.

We are looking for a technical consultant working at the interface between customer projects and product development. Expertise in some of the following areas is required: data science, data mining, text mining, knowledge engineering, taxonomy management, semantic web, semantic search, computer linguistics and/or linked data. Our consultants are an integral part of a dynamic, interdisciplinary, output-focussed team of semantic technology experts.

Semantic Web Company values loyality, intelligence and innovation and rewards strong performance with increased responsibility and growth opportunities. We offer great work-life balance and a culture that is cutting-edge, collaborative and fun. If you are interested in making an immediate impact in a growing company, we invite you to apply today.

Job Description:

  • Requirements engineering for customer projects
  • Project management of customer and / or R&D projects
  • Collaborating with information professionals to initiate customer projects
  • Data and knowledge engineering mainly based on our core product PoolParty Semantic Suite (http://www.poolparty.biz/)
  • Conceptual assistance to the product development team
  • Conceptual assistance to the business development team
  • Supporting the R&D efforts of the Semantic Web Company

Job Requirements:

  • Profound expertise with some knowledge technologies like graph databases, text mining, ontology engineering, machine learning etc.
  • Knowledge of Java
  • Strong troubleshooting/problem-solving skills
  • Exacting attention to detail and documentation
  • Ownership of problems
  • Ability to effectively manage multiple projects simultaneously
  • An inquiring mind, intense curiosity, interdisciplinary understanding and strong desire to innovate in the areas of Linked Data and Semantic Systems
  • At least a Bachelor degree related to computer science or information science and 4+ years of working experience or
  • a Master degree related to computer science or information science and 2+ years of working experience or
  • Excellent skills in written and spoken English. Additional languages (German, French, Spanish) are not obligatory but advantageous
  • Communication skills as well as experience in project management and requirements engineering
  • Able to travel occasionally in US and Europe, if required

 

  • Job Category: Technology Provider
  • Career Level: Mid Career (2+ years of experience)
  • Job Type: Full Time/Permanent
  • Positions: 2
  • Company Name: Semantic Web Company GmbH
  • City: Vienna
  • Country: Austria
  • For Austria: Gross Salary EUR 41.160,- p.a. Possibility for overpayment is based on education and experience.

 

Send your full application to:

Semantic Web Company
c/o Andreas Blumauer

Mail: jobs@semantic-web.at

Company: http://www.semantic-web.at
PoolParty Product Suite: http://poolparty.biz

October 28 2014

16:03

AKSW successful at #ISWC2014

Dear followers, 9 members of AKSW have been participating at the 13th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC) at Riva del Garda, Italy. Next to listening to interesting talks, giving presentations or discussing with fellow Semantic Web researchers, AKSW won 4 significant prizes:

We do work on way more projects, which you can find at http://aksw.org/projects/. Cheers, Ricardo on behalf of the AKSW group
Best Paper Award

October 27 2014

12:38

EU Big Data Value in Heidelberg Workshop

At the Heidelberg Final Event Workshop, Sebnem Rusitschka demonstrated the value of big data by presenting present and future use cases for Siemens in Europe.
The slides are now available on SlideShare (see above) and directly as PDF.
Tags:
12:24

BYTE Community Overview in Heidelberg

The BYTE community stands for "Big data roadmap and cross-disciplinarY community for addressing socieTal Externalities". Edward Curry gave a project overview at the BIG Final Event in Heidelberg.
The slides are now available on SlideShare (see above) and directly as PDF.

October 23 2014

14:35
cheap snapbacks please consider all this.
14:34
wholesale snapbacks it seems. So how can you make sure that the New Era 59Fifty fitted cap that you are eying is totally authentic
00:07

AKSW internal group meeting @ Dessau

Recently, AKSW members were at the city of Dessau for an internal group meeting.

The meeting took place between 8th and 10th of October, in the modern university of architecture of Bauhaus where most team members also stayed the nights. Bauhaus is located in the city of Dessau, about one hour from Leipzig. Bauhaus operated from 1919 to 1933 and was famous for the approach to design that combined crafts and the fine arts. At that time the German term Bauhaus – literally “house of construction” – was understood as meaning “School of Building”. It was a perfect getaway and an awesome location for AKSWers to meet and “build” together the future steps of the group.

Wednesday was spent mostly in smaller group discussions on various ongoing projects. Over the next two days the AKSW PhD students presented their achievements, current status and future plans of their PhD projects. During the meeting, we had the pleasure to receive valuable feedback from AKSW leaders and project managers as Prof. Sören Auer, Dr. Jens Lehmann, Prof. Thomas Riechert and Dr. Michael Martin. The heads of AKSW gave their inputs and suggestions to the students in order to help them to improve, continue and or complete their PhDs. In addition, the current projects were also discussed so as to find possible synergies between them and to discuss further improvements and ideas.

However, we did find some time to enjoy the beautiful city of Dessau as well and learned a little bit more about the history of this wonderful city.

Overall, it was a productive and recreational trip not only to keep a track of each students progress but also to help them to improve their work. We are all thankful to Prof. Riechert and Dr. Lehmann who were responsible for organizing this amazing meeting.

DSC_2817 SAM_3489 DSC_2806 DSC_2698 DSC_2724 DSC_2775 IMG_2950 SAM_3491 SAM_3565 IMG_2932 IMG_2930 IMG_2940 SAM_3630 SAM_3472 SAM_3493 SAM_3485 IMG_2963 SAM_3624 SAM_3498 SAM_3639 DSC_2736 DSC_2740 DSC_2742 DSC_2754 DSC_2767

October 22 2014

17:23

On Universality and Core Competence

I will here develop some ideas on the platform of Peter Boncz's inaugural lecture mentioned in the previous post. This is a high-level look at where the leading edge of analytics will be, now that the column store is mainstream.

Peter's description of his domain was roughly as follows, summarized from memory:

The new chair is for data analysis and engines for this purpose. The data analysis engine includes the analytical DBMS but is a broader category. For example, the diverse parts of the big data chain (including preprocessing, noise elimination, feature extraction, natural language extraction, graph analytics, and so forth) fall under this category, and most of these things are usually not done in a DBMS. For anything that is big, the main challenge remains one of performance and time to solution. These things are being done, and will increasingly be done, on a platform with heterogenous features, e.g., CPU/GPU clusters, possibly custom hardware like FPGAs, etc. This is driven by factors of cost and energy efficiency. Different processing stages will sometimes be distributed over a wide area, as for example in instrument networks and any network infrastructure, which is wide area by definition.

The design space of database and all that is around it is huge, and any exhaustive exploration is impossible. Development times are long, and a platform might take ten years to be mature. This is ill compatible with academic funding cycles. However, we should not leave all the research in this to industry, as industry maximizes profit, not innovation or absolute performance. Architecting data systems has aspects of an art. Consider the parallel with architecture of buildings: There are considerations of function, compatibility with environment, cost, restrictions arising from the materials at hand, and so forth. How a specific design will work cannot be known without experiment. The experiments themselves must be designed to make sense. This is not an exact science with clear-cut procedures and exact metrics of success.

This is the gist of Peter's description of our art. Peter's successes, best exemplified by MonetDB and Vectorwise, arise from focus over a special problem area and from developing and systematically applying specific insights to a specific problem. This process led to the emergence of the column store, which is now a mainstream thing. The DBMS that does not do columns is by now behind the times.

Needless to say, I am a great believer in core competence. Not every core competence is exactly the same. But a core competence needs to be broad enough so that its integral mastery and consistent application can produce a unit of value valuable in itself. What and how broad this is varies a great deal. Typically such a unit of value is something that is behind a "natural interface." This defies exhaustive definition but the examples below may give a hint. Looking at value chains and all diverse things in them that have a price tag may be another guideline.

There is a sort of Hegelian dialectic to technology trends: At the start, it was generally believed that a DBMS would be universal like the operating system itself, with a few products with very similar functionality covering the whole field. The antithesis came with Michael Stonebraker declaring that one size no longer fit all. Since then the transactional (OLTP) and analytical (OLAP) sides are clearly divided. The eventual synthesis may be in the air, with pioneering work like HyPer led by Thomas Neumann of TU München. Peter, following his Humbolt prize, has spent a couple of days a week in Thomas's group, and I have joined him there a few times. The key to eventually bridging the gap would be compilation and adaptivity. If the workload is compiled on demand, then the right data structures could always be at hand.

This might be the start of a shift similar to the column store turning the DBMS on its side, so to say.

In the mainstream of software engineering, objects, abstractions and interfaces are held to be a value almost in and of themselves. Our science, that of performance, stands in apparent opposition to at least any naive application of the paradigm of objects and interfaces. Interfaces have a cost, and boxes limit transparency into performance. So inlining and merging distinct (in principle) processing phases is necessary for performance. Vectoring is one take on this: An interface that is crossed just a few times is much less harmful than one crossed a billion times. Using compilation, or at least type-and-data-structure-specific variants of operators and switching their application based on run-time observed behaviors, is another aspect of this.

Information systems thus take on more attributes of nature, i.e., more interconnectedness and adaptive behaviors.

Something quite universal might emerge from the highly problem-specific technology of the column store. The big scan, selective hash join plus aggregation, has been explored in slightly different ways by all of HyPer, Vectorwise, and Virtuoso.

Interfaces are not good or bad, in and of themselves. Well-intentioned naïveté in their use is bad. As in nature, there are natural borders in the "technosphere"; declarative query languages, processor instruction sets, and network protocols are good examples. Behind a relatively narrow interface lies a world of complexity of which the unsuspecting have no idea. In biology, the cell membrane might be an analogy, but this is in all likelihood more permeable and diverse in function than the techno examples mentioned.

With the experience of Vectorwise and later Virtuoso, it turns out that vectorization without compilation is good enough for TPC-H. Indeed, I see a few percent of gain at best from further breaking of interfaces and "biology-style" merging of operators and adding inter-stage communication and self-balancing. But TPC-H is not the end of all things, even though it is a sort of rite of passage: Jazz players will do their take on Green Dolphin Street and Summertime.

Science is drawn towards a grand unification of all which is. Nature, on the other hand, discloses more and more diversity and special cases, the closer one looks. This may be true of physical things, but also of abstractions such as software systems or mathematics.

So, let us look at the generalized DBMS, or the data analysis engine, as Peter put it. The use of DBMS technology is hampered by its interface, i.e., declarative query language. The well known counter-reactions to this are the NoSQL, MapReduce, and graph DB memes, which expose lower level interfaces. But then the interface gets put in the whole wrong place, denying most of the things that make the analytics DBMS extremely good at what it does.

We need better and smarter building blocks and interfaces at zero cost. We continue to need blocks of some sort, since algorithms would stop being understandable without any data/procedural abstraction. At run time, the blocks must overlap and interpenetrate: Scan plus hash plus reduction in one loop, for example. Inter-thread, inter-process status sharing for things like top k for faster convergence, for another. Vectorized execution of the same algorithm on many data for things like graph traversals. There are very good single blocks, like GPU graph algorithms, but interface and composability are ever the problem.

So, we must unravel the package that encapsulates the wonders of the analytical DBMS. These consist of scan, hash/index lookup, partitioning, aggregation, expression evaluation, scheduling, message passing and related flow control for scale-out systems, just to mention a few. The complete list would be under 30 long, with blocks parameterized by data payload and specific computation.

By putting these together in a few new ways, we will cover much more of the big data pipeline. Just-in-time compilation may well be the way to deliver these components in an application/environment tailored composition. Yes, keep talking about block diagrams, but never once believe that this represents how things work or ought to work. The algorithms are expressed as distinct things, but at the level of the physical manifestation, things are parallel and interleaved.

The core skill for architecting the future of data analytics is correct discernment of abstraction and interface. What is generic enough to be broadly applicable yet concise enough to be usable? When should the computation move, and when should the data move? What are easy ways of talking about data location? How can protect the application developer be protected from various inevitable stupidities?

No mistake about it, there are at present very few people with the background for formulating the blueprint for the generalized data pipeline. These will be mostly drawn from architects of DBMS. The prospective user is any present-day user of analytics DBMS, Hadoop, or the like. By and large, SQL has worked well within its area of applicability. If there had never been an anti-SQL rebel faction, SQL would not have been successful. Now that a broader workload definition calls for redefinition of interfaces, so as to use the best where it fits, there is a need for re-evaluation of the imperative Vs. declarative question.

T. S. Eliot once wrote that humankind cannot bear very much reality. It seems that we in reality can deconstruct the DBMS and redeploy the state of the art to serve novel purposes across a broader set of problems. This is a cross-over that slightly readjusts the mental frame of the DBMS expert but leaves the core precepts intact. In other words, this is a straightforward extension of core competence with no slide into the dilettantism of doing a little bit of everything.

People like MapReduce and stand-alone graph programming frameworks, because these do one specific thing and are readily understood. By and large, these are orders of magnitude simpler than the DBMS. Even when the DBMS provides in-process Java or CLR, these are rarely used. The single-purpose framework is a much narrower core competence, and thus less exclusive, than the high art of the DBMS, plus it has a faster platform development cycle.

In the short term, we will look at opening the SQL internal toolbox for graph analytics applications. I was discussing this idea with Thomas Neumann at Peter Boncz's party. He asked who would be the user. I answered that doing good parallel algorithms, even with powerful shorthands, was an expert task; so the people doing new types of analytics would be mostly on the system vendor side. However, modifying such for input selection and statistics gathering would be no harder than doing the same with ready-made SQL reports.

There is significant possibility for generalization of the leading edge of database. How will this fare against single-model frameworks? We hope to shed some light on this in the final phase of LDBC and beyond.

Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.