W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-awwsw@w3.org > May 2009

Re: AWWSW telecon, Tues May 26

From: Jonathan Rees <jar@creativecommons.org>
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 11:42:13 -0400
Message-ID: <760bcb2a0905240842m2ffac052p5feaef65ac322174@mail.gmail.com>
To: Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>
Cc: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>, AWWSW TF <public-awwsw@w3.org>
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:29 PM, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org> wrote:

> While we deploy the reverse methodology of the AWWSW (We look
> primarily at AWWW and then model in a "top-down" fashion, rather than
> trying to model each spec and then build a "bottom-up" ontology),

Actually I disagree with this. Going bottom up from various models and
then synthesizing was exactly what I, at least, have been advocating.
We are currently working bottom-up from one particular model, Tim's
generic resources ontology, and this does not obviously coincide with
what AWWW says (it only coincides in that Tim has said that his
*intent* was that generic resource = AWWW information resource); in
fact I haven't heard anyone in this group taking AWWW seriously except
me, and that is not because I think it makes sense but only on the
principle that it is a W3C recommendation and is therefore one of the
few documents in this area with any normative potential. In any case,
if we can understand the generic resources idea, we can then proceed
to relate it to others; but at present I personally don't understand
it well enough to do much of anything with it.

If you're going to work from the vocabulary page, then I guess I'd
better scramble to align that page with the omnigraffle pictures I've
been making.

In any case I'll try to look over your work, and to the extent it
liberates us that will be fantastic. Does this mean you're considering
rejoining the group?

Received on Sunday, 24 May 2009 15:42:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:21:07 UTC