W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw@w3.org > January 2003

RE: A proposed theme for SW Activity phase 2: 'SW on the Web'

From: Seaborne, Andy <Andy_Seaborne@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:27:24 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F0586D071@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'public-esw@w3.org'" <public-esw@w3.org>


It would be good to see more RDF "out there".  Getting real use ("real"
being relative here!) both increases the visibility of the semantic web and
fuels the software that makes it all go.  We need to ask what would make for
more RDF produced and consumed.

It is hard today to author RDF or to use RDF.  One really needs to be
comfortable with the specs to make serious progress, especially if others
are going to use the RDF.  For that reason, I think there is much to do in
the software tools for RDF to make the barriers to its use much less.

This is especially true of using RDF read from elsewhere - people will be
encouraged to add/create RDF to their webs when people think it enhances the
value of their pages.

So - "yes" to use of RDF on the public web, but it is a bit of a "both" not


-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Reynolds [mailto:der@hplb.hpl.hp.com] 
Sent: 14 January 2003 15:37
To: Dan Brickley
Cc: public-esw@w3.org
Subject: Re: A proposed theme for SW Activity phase 2: 'SW on the Web'

I mostly agree but with a slight note of caution.

I agree that it is best to pick one, or a small number of, focused
classes. I agree that success on the "public web" would carry more impact
many alternatives and should be the target if possible.

My caution is that the semantic web is primarily about machine readable data
the public web is, currently, primarily about human readable data. This
tends to
leave the role of the semantic web technology on the public web as mostly
concerned with metadata about otherwise human readable documents. Metadata
certainly useful but (a) is often internal to a site and so benefits less
standardization and (b) is subject to the bottleneck that people avoid
metadata if they possibly can. 

Now I *do* think there are roles for semantic web technologies in the public
web, otherwise we wouldn't have proposed semantic blogging and semantic
as our two demonstrator apps! However, I'm not sure we have a clear idea of
most useful roles. So "yes" to targeting the public web, but work needs to
to make that more specific before you turn it into work priorities.

[The use of "I" lots of times is meant to indicate that this is a personal

Dan Brickley wrote:
> Attached is a message I've just sent to the W3C Semantic Web Coordination
> list, where we are discussing priorities to propose for phase two of the
> Semantic Web Activity, beginning later in the spring.  The mail archives
for SWCG are
> on the W3C Member website at
> so passwords are needed to track that discussion.
> Needless to say the attached view[1] is just my personal opinion. I'd be
> in the views of SWAD-Europe folk on how they see things, personal views or
> More context: W3C SW page, http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ and current
> Activity statement: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Activity#
> Dan
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-semweb-cg/2003Jan/0032.html
> Subject: A proposed theme for SW Activity phase 2: 'SW on the Web'
> Resent-Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:04:49 -0500 (EST)
> Resent-From: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
> Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 08:04:45 -0500
> From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> To: w3c-semweb-cg@w3.org
> CC: libby.miller@bristol.ac.uk
> Short version: phase two of W3C SW Activity should focus on getting RDF
used in the
> public Web. Everything else (especially new technology creation) is
secondary to that
> goal.
> Here's a longer account of my view for SW Activity phase two priorities.
> (Ontologists, note that I write 'RDF' in its broader sense, as a
Framework, for which
> we now have an Ontology language; when I write 'RDF' pls read 'RDF/OWL' if
you prefer).
> RDF and SW/Ontology tools are very general. They could be used for almost
> to do with modern information management. This broad applicability is what
> draws many of us to the technology, but also a source of risk: by being
> _usable_ for everything, we risk being _used_ for nothing. A reasurringly
> range of groups are exploring the possibilities of RDF, yet RDF is not
tailored to
> any of their specific needs. We must be doing something right. But we
shouldn't forget
> that more tailored solutions in each field could easily discourage RDF
> We can't please all the people, all the time.
> Something we might attempt in phase two is to focus our effects a bit on
> particular fields for deploying RDF/OWL. I propose (this is so obvious as
> barely need saying, perhaps) that we focus on the public Web in phase two
of the Activity.
> By 'the public Web', I mean the work of Web masters, HTML authors,
focussing on
> publically available sites who are currently mostly using
HTML+CSS+jpeg/gif/png as their
> content formats, and perhaps dabbling with RSS, Flash, SVG and other fancy
new stuff.
> I would like to see more RDF files on publically visible Web servers. RDF
files that
> use a variety of RDF schemas and Ontologies, and that link to other RDF
> scattered around the Web. Once we have this, I'm confident the rest
(intranets, domain
> specific tools, RDF in backend databases etc.) will follow. Right now, if
you go
> looking in the public Web for folk using RDF, there really isn't much out
there. A few
> large datadumps, a few keys into webservice lookups or screen scrapes, a
fair amount
> of Dublin Core embedded (invalidly) in HTML or linked as separate files, a
> number of RSS files, some of which are in RSS 1.0 (but not really
exploiting the RDF
> aspects of RSS), and a few hundred FOAF files. This is pretty modest
situation to be
> in after 5+ years of RDF work. It isn't disasterous, but should be a cause
for concern,
> and for focus as we design the next phase of the Activity.
> I would like us to go into phase two with some notion of success criteria:
what would
> count as having succeeded? I'm suggesting that an almost quantitative
> may be applicable. If there are lots of RDF documents being used on
ordinary Web sites,
> whether commercial, personal, Weblog, portal or academic, then something
is going
> right. If we end phase two without this, then we likely should think about
> up and going home.
> Let's make phase two all about roll-out. Getting RDF, even simple, perhaps
boring RDF,
> on the agendas, web sites and CVs of ordinary Web masters and content
producers. That
> RDF will be all the more meaningful if it draws on vocabularies enriched
with OWL, and
> we will have our work cut out for us helping folk do this effectively.
> If, in attempting to get RDF deployed in this way, we find the reason for
> is that people need common APIs, more standard query languages, protocols,
or rule
> languages, then yes, we could start work in those areas. But right now I
don't believe
> for a second that RDF is relatively undeployed because we've not created
> accompanying Web standards. When RDF is used, eg. in RSS, or Dublin Core,
it is often
> 'on faith', ie because people are anticipating some payback from using it
> they could have adopted a pre-RDF or vanilla XML solution. Many people are
> waiting to see what their RDF dabblings bought them.
> By focussing phase two on public Web deployment, I believe we will have a
> chance of increasing the number of RDF documents and RDF tools and
RDF-basd services
> that are visible to folk investigating the technology. Since RDF is all
> data merging and network effects, it becomes a stronger platform for
> management with every new shared document that uses it. This, if nothing
else, should
> draw our attention towards priorities that encourage the publication of
> documents on the Web.
> If this account of a theme for phase two is at all persuasive, I think we
> derrive some specific work items and priorities. But let's agree on what
we're trying
> to achieve, first. Even if it something as almost-crass as 'lots of RDF
> on lots of Web sites'. Stating the obvious might be worthwhile, I suspect.
> cheers,
> Dan
> ps. i'll probably forward this to a public archived mailing list, for
> b/g in discussions in SWAD-Europe and the RDFIG.
Received on Tuesday, 14 January 2003 12:27:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:56:37 UTC