This is a guest post by Paul Miller, a Semantic Web and Cloud Computing expert who was most recently a Technology Evangelist at UK technology company, Talis.

Not merely some game of buzzword bingo on an unprecedented scale, cloud computing is coming into its own, and it is becoming increasingly easy to see the opportunities for a significant shift in the way we access computational resources and to recognize that the walls separating organizations from their peers, partners, competitors, and customers will become ever-more permeable to the flow of data through which those distant machines will compute.

There are many areas to understand that have already been ascertained in related fields, and many ideas unique to this space to discover. One early challenge is to carve a distinct niche for the place we are moving towards with such rapidity. Far more than "just" a cloud, it is an evolutionary cycle beyond the playful flippancy that diminishes so many of Web 2.0's poster children, and it is difficult to relate to mainstream misconceptions of the semantic web's complexity. Yet this new place is greater than the sum of its parts. So do we sustain the already ephemeral notion of cloud computing? Do we appropriate the "next big thing" label of Web 3.0? Or do we need a fresh attitude towards business computing's apparently insatiable desire to apply labels?

First, though, let us consider the shape of this thing that is taking on more substance with each passing day.

Reporting on last month's Web 2.0 Summit in San Francisco, CNET's Dan Farber notes that "the cloud was omnipresent," before closing his report with the observation that "cloud computing won't be very compelling without what is variously called Web 3.0 or the semantic web."

Indeed.

For too long, the emphasis in cloud computing circles has been almost exclusively on the provision of rapidly scalable and ad hoc remote computing on top of cost-effective commodity hardware. The cloud play by Salesforce, Amazon's EC2, and the rest has been dominated by the implicit assumption that these cloud-based resources are an extension of the corporate data center; a way to simply reduce the costs of enterprise computing.

There is value down this road, but there are bigger opportunities.

Nick Carr is among those who fear that a small number of players may come to dominate the provision of cloud resources. He outlines many of these arguments in his latest book, The Big Switch, and more recently had an interesting discussion with Tim O'Reilly on the topic. Justin Leavesley shares some of Talis' views on the economics behind all of this over on Nodalities, broadly agreeing with Tim O'Reilly:

"It's pretty clear that utility cloud computing is highly capital intensive so it should come as no surprise that there are powerful economies of scale to be had. But the bottom line is that you are talking about plant and power. These are rival goods, scarce resources that are created and consumed. This is not different from many utility industries with one exception: the distribution network has global reach, already exists and is very cheap compared to existing utility distribution networks. It is a lot cheaper to access a computing resource on the other side of the planet than it is to send electricity or gas across the globe... [So] what is to stop economies of scale turning this into a global natural monopoly?

"Actually, unless there are some large network effects, quite a lot stops single companies ruling entire industries. For a start, without network effects, economies of scale tend to run out: the curve is usually U-shaped. Telecoms, gas, rail companies have strong network effects from their infrastructure -- it makes little sense to have duplicate rail networks or gas networks in a country. Utility computing does not have this advantage because the distribution network is not owned by them."

Continuing the conversation, Carr summarizes the usual widely held perception of cloud computing nicely:

"The history of computing has been a history of falling prices (and consequently expanding uses). But the arrival of cloud computing -- which transforms computer processing, data storage, and software applications into utilities served up by central plants -- marks a fundamental change in the economics of computing. It pushes down the price and expands the availability of computing in a way that effectively removes, or at least radically diminishes, capacity constraints on users. A PC suddenly becomes a terminal through which you can access and manipulate a mammoth computer that literally expands to meet your needs. What used to be hard or even impossible suddenly becomes easy."

This is quite true, but it continues and further entrenches the misapprehension that the cloud is little more than an adjunct to the corporate data centre, a misapprehension that we shall get down to challenging in a moment.

First, though, there is a growing recognition that today's market leaders will inevitably need to become more interoperable if this business segment, and they, are to grow. The proprietary nature of their offerings today may allow them to innovate ahead of the standards process (which will be shaped in large part by the lessons they learn), and the relatively high cost of switching to a competitor today may give each the critical mass on which to invest and grow; but the characteristics of the current market are clearly the characteristics of a nascent market: computing's new Wild West. As so often before, standardization, true competition, mainstream adoption, and commoditization will all follow as we move towards phases 2 and 3 of Gartner analyst Thomas Bittman's intriguing analysis of the "evolution of the cloud computing market." Similarly, Erica Naone offered a useful overview of cloud computing's open-source component in Technology Review last month. None of the projects she covers are a significant challenge to Amazon's EC2, Microsoft's Azure, Salesforce's Force.com or Google's App Engine... yet. But together, they help to keep these commercial entrants honest and remind all of us that switching costs can be brought very low indeed if the pain of the status quo becomes too great.

Writing "Welcome to the Data Cloud?" for ZDNet in October, I began to explore the important role that data could and should play in the cloud:

"Just as 'we' used to duplicate and under-utilize computational resources, so we do something very similar with our data. We expensively enter and re-enter the same facts, over and over again. We over-engineer data capture forms and schemas, making collection exorbitantly expensive, whilst often appearing to do all we can to limit opportunities for re-use. Under the all-too-easy banners of 'security' and 'privacy' we secure individual data stores and fail to exploit connections with other sources, whether inside or outside the enterprise.

"In a small way, the efforts of the Linked Data Project's enthusiasts have demonstrated how different things should be. The cloud of contributing data sets grows from month to month, and the number of double-headed arrows denoting a two-way linkage is on the rise. Even the one-way relationships that currently dominate the diagram are a marked improvement on 'business as usual' elsewhere on the data web; even in these cases, data from a third party is being re-used (by means of a link across the web) rather than replicated or re-invented. Costs fall. Opportunities open up. Both resources, potentially, improve. The strands of the web grow stronger."

It is here, in the use and reuse of data, that the potential of the cloud will be realized. Back to the previously cited conversation between Nick Carr and Tim O'Reilly, O'Reilly himself comes very close to saying so:

"In short, Google is the ultimate network effects machine. 'Harnessing collective intelligence' isn't a different idea from network effects, as Nick argues. It is in fact the science of network effects -- understanding and applying the implications of networks.

"I want to emphasize one more point: the heart of my argument about Web 2.0 is that the network effects that matter today are network effects in data. My thought process (outlined in 'The Open Source Paradigm Shift' and then in 'What is Web 2.0?,' went something like this:

1. The consequence of IBM's design of a personal computer made out of commodity, off-the-shelf parts was to drive attractive margins out of hardware and into software, via Clayton Christensen's 'law of conservation of attractive profits.' Hardware became a low margin business; software became a very high margin business.
2. Open-source software and the standardized protocols of the Internet are doing the same thing to software. Margins will go down in software, but per the law of conservation of attractive profits, this means that they will go up somewhere else. Where?
3. The next layer of attractive profits will accrue to companies that build data-backed applications in which the data gets better the more people use the system. This is what I've called Web 2.0.

It's network effects (perhaps more simply described as virtuous circles) in data that ultimately matter, not network effects per se."
(my emphasis)

Talis CTO Ian Davis would appear to agree, commenting:

"People need to be investing in their data as the long-term carrier of value, not the applications around them... The data is more likely to persist than the software, so it's important to get the data right and take care of it."

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, too, used his Dreamforce User Conference this month to move a company long associated with the "data-centre extending cloud" firmly in the direction of embracing data and the network. As Krishnan Subramanian noted on Cloud Ave before the keynote:

"Till now, the Force.com platform served business users to develop apps that can be used internally within an organization. They have to tap into Force.com APIs from outside platforms to offer customer-facing web apps. With the new initiative, it becomes easy for customers to allow the Internet users to 'interact' with their data."

Over on VentureBeat, Anthony Ha had more:

"Salesforce.com wants to become an even big player in the cloud computing market with a new service called Force.com Sites, which allows companies to host public-facing web applications in the Force.com platform. That means Salesforce --- nominally a maker of customer relationship management (CRM) software, but also an increasingly important platform for business-related applications --- is moving closer to direct competition with cloud giants like Amazon Web Services and the Google App Engine."

Locked away within an organization and only accessed by that organization's applications, data cannot be put to full use. Much of the value in each individual datum lies in comparing it to other measurements, in delving into detail, and in pulling back to observe the bigger picture.

Organizations that believe that either the big picture or the detail resides in their own systems alone are woefully misguided. Even the most specialized, proprietary, and confidential of data only reveal their true value when put in context, and that context is all the richer when informed by numerous perspectives.

Cloud computing, and the various SaaS movements, have finally brought us to a place where the fiercely guarded and tightly delineated boundaries between the organization and those outside it may become permeable in ways that should benefit the organization rather than threaten it. Data is just a resource. In the terminology of Geoffrey Moore, most data are often mere context, and there are savings to be made both in reusing the data of others and in re-selling necessary context to those prepared to pay. Some data, of course, is core to the business, and this may continue to receive the same reverence and protection that we misguidedly apply to the entire database today. Even here, though, the opportunities afforded by (controlled?) sharing may outweigh any desire to maintain data protectionism.

The language of Groundswell offers opportunities to go further, to embrace and exploit the behaviors and motivations of customers and the wider web.

There is clearly far more to say in clarifying this view of both the components and the whole, but at over 2,000 words, this post has perhaps gone on long enough.

For now, then, we should conclude by asking what role the semantic web has to play in any of this. The semantic web, with its unadulterated recognition of the primacy of the web's hyperlink? The semantic web, designed from the outset to convey context and relationships derived from data spread across the web? The semantic web, supported by technologies that operate openly and on the scale of the web?

Isn't it obvious yet?

Returning to the Web 2.0 Summit with which we began, another presentation was from Kevin Kelly, founding editor of Wired Magazine. Steve Gillmor and Nicole Ferraro reported on his presentation at the time, and the video was subsequently shared online, echoing Kelly's earlier presentation (which I greatly enjoyed), in which he argued:

"You have to be open to having your data shared... which is a much bigger step than just sharing your web pages or your computer."

Yep, here we go, on a journey toward Kevin Kelly's "World Wide Database," which will take in a lot of the shifts facing enterprise computing along the way.

This is a guest post by Paul Miller, a Semantic Web and Cloud Computing expert who was most recently a Technology Evangelist at UK technology company, Talis.

In Part 2 of this story, we reveal some of Zoho's cookbook.

At the Web 2.0 Expo in New York last week, Jason Fried of 37 Signals, another company that has done well by defying conventional wisdom, advised entrepreneurs to "follow the chefs". He meant that great Chefs give away their recipes. That just makes you want to come to their restaurants even more. Particularly if the recipe looks complex. And Zoho's looks complex.

So I hope they won't mind me giving out the recipe they revealed when I met with Raju Vegesna, one of their founders, last week. I noted 3 major ingredients:

1. New ways of competing for talent

2. A related cash cow business

3. Pragmatic, non dogmatic approach to winning business

New Ways of Competing for Talent

If I had to select one "secret sauce" in Zoho's recipe, it would be how they recruit. Zoho (with parent company, Adventnet) has 700 developers. All the developers are in India, specifically Chennai.

India is a ridiculously competitive market for developer talent currently. I see parallels with Silicon Valley in 1999, when average developers got inflated expectations and inflated paychecks. Attrition is problem # 1.

Developers see their career path as managing other developers. Your mojo is based on how many people you manage. Managing 1,000 makes you ten times better than managing 100 and so on. This is the reverse of America where a developer will drop custom service work as soon as it is possible to work on a product.

This is a terrible environment for a product company to compete for talent. How does Zoho compete for talent in this market?

1. Hire from school. Yes, school, not college. So they don't compete to hire from final year of College or in the even more hot market of developers with a few years experience. Great code is typically written by young people - which explains a lot of the "college drop out makes $ billions" stories in America.

2. Pay one year of college fees. This is a salary, not a loan, with no strings attached. According to Raju, 90% join Zoho at the end of that year, but there is no obligation. This gives Zoho an edge with the brightest at school as they have an unusual offer.

Zoho's philosophy is that 4 years college when you are young is not right for many people. Better to have life-long learning but get real world experience early and get some cash while you are at it. This gets a big "yes" from parents paying college fees!

Zoho have their own Zoho University. This is not uncommon for big employers in India. It is a necessary complement to hiring early.

Related cash cow

Zoho has a related cash cow business that enable them to fund Zoho. This is not unlike Google. Microsoft's problem is that their cash cow - Office - is the one that both Google and Zoho are going after. That gives them one nasty Innovator's Dilemma.

Zoho's initial cash cow business is selling network management tools. This has been profitable for 12 years. Zoho itself is due to be profitable next year.

The network management tools business is doing the same as Zoho - products at least as good as the competition for a fraction of the price. This business also gives Zoho a capability for running large data centers, which is a core competency for a SaaS business.

Pragmatic, Non Dogmatic Approach to Winning Business

By all accounts, Zoho won GE's business in head to head competition with Google. GE wanted to cut cost and enable collaboration, which meant Microsoft was less of a contender. Google was the obvious "you never got fired for choosing" winner. Why did GE choose Zoho? There are two likely reasons:

1. Zoho allowed GE to run the software in their own data centers. GE has the economies of scale to run their own data centers and clearly prize the control that this enables. Zoho specified the hardware, but GE bought it and deployed it. Is a "Zoho Appliance" far behind?

2. Visual Basic Scripts in Spreadsheets. Current tech orthodoxy frowns on VB, but if you have thousands of existing Excel spreadsheets running VB that would be a show-stopper.

The biggest benefit for the company, though, could come from changed legal and tax status by placing the ships outside of national jurisdiction. It's a thought both fascinating and frightening, although it also may end up as just another crazy patent filed for the sake of filing it.

Google refused to say how soon its barges could set sail. The company said: "We file patent applications on a variety of ideas. Some of those ideas later mature into real products, services or infrastructure, some don't."

There's lengthy and sometimes well informed discussion of the data-ship patent over at Slashdot today as well. Jeff Nolan does his best to debunk the the idea too. The whole thing also brings to mind the plans by the website Pirate Bay to buy retired British naval platform turned "micro-nation" Sealand. Those plans were not well received by authorities.

This Might Just Be a Pipe Dream

Two years ago I wrote about another Google patent, for software that would capture the ambient audio in a room and serve up contextual ads and content. That product hasn't come to market yet, as far as we know. (We kid, sort of.)

It's hard not to want to sound the alarm, though, on such strange plans. Google's huge, centralized store of data about so much of our lives is inherently cause for concern - but put that data out to sea and outside of ostensible government oversight and it's downright frightening. In some places that could be a positive development but generally speaking we're not sure it's a gamble we'd like to take.

We don't know about the ecological impacts or the technical feasibility, but we imagine this idea would be a pretty hard one to resist if it could be implemented.