W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

danbri sw bpd wg - wishlist slides

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:59:50 -0500
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040304105950.GB28243@homer.w3.org>

----- Forwarded message from Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> -----

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:57:15 -0500
To: www-archive@w3.org
Subject: danbri sw bpd wg - wishlist slides
Message-ID: <20040304105715.GA28243@homer.w3.org>
Resent-From: www-archive@w3.org
Resent-Date: Thu,  4 Mar 2004 05:57:17 -0500 (EST)


BPD WG wishlist
Expect to hear ‚€œthat sounds like a job for the BPD WG‚€ -
prioritising is important
Our scope is broad - open datasets (eg. Musicbrainz, TAP, lists of
names, places) important as Semantic Web scaffolding
Focus on gathering stories (first person human perspective) from early
adopters, from KR old timers, from  newcomers‚€¶?
3 wishlist items
1. Representing thesauri on the SW using RDF/OWL
2. Vocabulary documentation: techniques and conventions for publishing
useful information at namespace URIs (RDF/OWL/XHTML etc.)
3. Deployment practicalities for versioning of public, deployed,
‚€œlive‚€ RDF?OWL vocabs

SW Thesauri in RDF/OWL
technical + social: help digital library and metadata community (eg.
Dublin Core) feel the SW effort addresses their needs
2 styles: RDF description of thesaurus data structures, versus RDF/OWL
that tells you what the thesaurus told you (swad-e & other)
Costs/tradeoffs of each, mapping between the two idioms
2. Vocabulary Documentation
FAQ: what can/should I publish at my namespace URI? RDF? XHTML? Content
negotiation?
Practical impact of / versus # debate, especially with large vocabs like
thesauri
Case studies and story telling rather than REC-track ‚€˜rules‚€™,
initially at least

Practical of vocab versioning
rebuilding a floating ship: the (Semantic) Web is in constant operation
Costs/benefits of changing vocab versus publishing a successor
vocabulary
Mitigating impact of chosen approach: stakeholders, feedback


----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 05:59:50 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 4 March 2004 05:59:51 EST