RE: First draft - Mission for O&G Semantic Web Interest Group

Well, actually all I tried to convince them was that something like an interoperable means of creating a standard transaction format was needed.  That is, it's not a matter of much concern if vendors internally implement quads -- but the problem occurs if we want to transfer the information from one vendor system to another and in the process lose the information contained in the fourth component.  It appears that SPARQLUA MAY provide such a capability.  UA?  Did I get that right?  SPARQLsomething involved with update.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chum, Frank Y 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 1:59 PM
To: Ivan Herman; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: public-ogsw@w3.org
Subject: RE: First draft - Mission for O&G Semantic Web Interest Group

Didn't Roger (representing the energy people), try to influence changing of the OWL triple standards to say, a quad, in order to take advantage of some of the performance related enhancements that the commercial OWL engines are doing, and thereby, enhancing interoperability?
:-)))

-----Original Message-----
From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 6:45 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: Chum, Frank Y; public-ogsw@w3.org
Subject: Re: First draft - Mission for O&G Semantic Web Interest Group



Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> OH MY!  You mean, the spec was unduly influenced by the people actually
> trying to use it?  Heavens!! 

:-) No. The critique was that other communities were not well
represented. So time for the energy people to do the same:-)

Ivan


> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ivan Herman [mailto:ivan@w3.org] 
> Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 3:30 AM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: Chum, Frank Y; public-ogsw@w3.org
> Subject: Re: First draft - Mission for O&G Semantic Web Interest Group
> 
> 
> 
> Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
>> Looks generally good, I guess.  I see it is modeled closely on the 
>> HCLS statement, some of which may have an HCLS flavor.  For example, 
>> disseminating to academia and government sounds like them, not us.
>> Perish the thought that we would disseminate anything at a government 
>> event, at least as far as I'm concerned.  I would personally just 
>> eliminate the last bullet as either obvious or misleading.  I might 
>> also wonder whether another bullet might be possible along the lines 
>> of identifying areas of concern to the industry that need further 
>> standards work from the W3C?  I'm a little surprised that HCLS doesn't
> 
>> say something about that.  Hasn't this actually (sort of) happened?
>>
> 
> We have to be careful how we phrase this, not to impose commitments on
> W3C but yes, it is worth adding something along those lines.
> 
> Roger, to directly answer to your question: the HCSL community did not
> come back with specific technologies to standardize, but have influenced
> a lot, say, the evolution of OWL. In some ways, almost too strongly: one
> of the critiques we got during the last call comments on OWL 2 was that
> the requirements document is too dominated by HCLS related examples and
> use cases:-)
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> Here's a question.  You eliminated "Document guidelines to accelerate 
>> the adoption of the technology," which I understand and seems 
>> reasonable for us, too, and replaced it with "Advocate the inclusion 
>> of industry standards to accelerate the adoption of the technology," 
>> which I don't understand.  Do you mean inclusion of SW industry 
>> standards in O&G business, or of O&G industry standards in SW?  And in
> 
>> either case, what was on your mind?  I don't understand this one at
> all.
>>  
>>
>> *From:* Chum, Frank Y
>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 26, 2009 12:33 PM
>> *To:* public-ogsw@w3.org
>> *Cc:* Ivan Herman; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
>> *Subject:* First draft - Mission for O&G Semantic Web Interest Group
>>
>>  
>>
>> Mission
>>
>>  
>>
>> The mission of the Oil & Gas Industry Semantic Web Interest Group, as 
>> part of the W3C Semantic Web Activity <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/>, is
> 
>> to develop, advocate for, and support the use of Semantic Web 
>> technologies for Oil & Gas exploration and production, reservoir 
>> management, major capital projects, facility and downstream 
>> operations, as well as knowledge and information management.  These 
>> domains stand to gain tremendous benefit by adoption of Semantic Web 
>> technologies, as they depend on the interoperability of information 
>> from many domains and processes for efficient decision support.
>>
>>  
>>
>> The group will:
>>
>> *         Document use cases to aid individuals in understanding the
>> business and technical benefits of using Semantic Web technologies.
>>
>> *         Advocate the inclusion of industry standards to accelerate
> the
>> adoption of the technology.
>>
>> *         Implement a selection of the use cases as proof-of-concept
>> demonstrations.
>>
>> *         Explore the possibility of developing sharable high level
>> vocabularies, or adopt those that are industry standards.
>>
>> *         Disseminate information about the group's work at industry,
>> academic, and government events.
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>>  
>>
>> Note that I have modeled this after the recently updated W3C Semantic 
>> Web Health Care and Life Sciences (HCLS) Interest Group's 
>> <http://www.w3.org/blog/hcls/2009/03/01/> mission.
>>
>>  
>>
>> As Roger and I are proposing this under the auspices of W3C, we need 
>> to discuss the appropriate participation guidelines also.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Your thoughts?
>>
>>  
>>
>> Frank
>>
>>  
>>
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/

mobile: +31-641044153
PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html

FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf

Received on Friday, 27 March 2009 19:58:24 UTC