W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > July 2006

RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: expectations of vocabulary)

From: Miller, Michael D (Rosetta) <Michael_Miller@Rosettabio.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 08:45:35 -0700
To: "Xiaoshu Wang" <wangxiao@musc.edu>, public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org, "Semantic Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>
Message-ID: <E1G5laE-0008Os-GK@maggie.w3.org>

Hi Xiaoshu,

I think many excellent points and discussions are being made but I'm
feeling frustrated because, in the 80/20 paradigm (80% is easy to
implement the last 20% is much harder), these discussions are in the
20%, I might even venture that they are in the top 5%.

The vast majority of the potential consumers (the 80%) of the semantic
web are just the group I was pointing out, normal researchers who don't
care how google works, or http, they just use it.  What they would want
to get from the semantic web is probably out there already and if the
infrastructure of the semantic web could be set up to reach the already
existing resources (GO, MO, NCI metathesaurus, etc) in even an
admittedly limited fashion, adoption and additional resources would
become available for the semantic web.

There seems lately in these discussions to be an emphasis on making the
semantic web useable for the 5% who care about transitive closure and
for perfect modularity.  These are great things, but they will come
faster, I believe, if the semantic web becomes available with what we
have now.

I've seen relatively little discussion that targets this 80% that is
available right now, warts and all.

cheers,
Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-semweb-lifesci-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Xiaoshu Wang
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 7:10 PM
> To: public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org; 'Semantic Web'
> Subject: RE: Semantic content negotiation (was Re: 
> expectations of vocabulary)
> 
> 
> 
> --Michael,
> 
> > This group seems to have forgotten that for the semantic web 
> > to be used by more than a handful of hardcore researchers, it 
> > will need have tools that are easy to use for the average joe 
> > researcher.  It feels like there are a lot of levels that 
> > have gotten mixed up in the recent discussions.
> 
> When I said consumer, I meant it to be those who wrote the 
> software agent.
> Not the consumer who actually use the agent. Because no 
> matter what, it is
> the consumer who sends the request info to the provider.  What kind of
> closure always comes from the consumer.  The issue here is 
> who should be
> handle it.
> 
> Xiaoshu
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 26 July 2006 15:46:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:44 GMT