- From: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@semsol.com>
- Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2010 13:58:50 +0200
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On 02.07.2010 12:53:11, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >But telling those user stories and marketing the solution bundles is >not something that can realistically be done via the medium of *specs*. Yes, full agreement here. That's why the thread felt so weird to me, I think the entire focus is wrong. But I'm starting to realize that this is apparently the wrong forum to state this ;) (It was the last W3C list I was still subscribed, too, though. Time to stop whining and move on, I guess). >In all fairness, the workshop was specifically about figuring out what >changes and additions to the RDF core specifications make sense, and >it was limited by a tight schedule. Better learning material and >similar work items were not in scope. I see now, thx, I just re-read the workshop page. Should have known better that this stuff is still not considered important enough to put it on an agenda.. >W3C is running a number of XGs and IGs, which are in a position to >produce marketing and teaching materials. Do you have proposals for >concrete things that the existing groups should tackle? If the XGs can't figure that out on their own, we're pretty lost. What about interactive tools that answer "find the specs relevant to me", "who is using this?", "what tools exist for this?", "what are the dependencies?", "examples?", "what should I read next?". We'd need an annotation tool for the individual specs and spec sections. But then we'd have to use our own boring technology for what we say it's made for. Nah.., just had this cool idea of sub-queries in property paths, gotta work on that first. ;) Benji > >Best, >Richard > > > >> >> Benji >> >> -- >> Benjamin Nowack >> http://bnode.org/ >> http://semsol.com/ >> >> > >
Received on Friday, 2 July 2010 11:59:31 UTC