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

RE: On a possible role for the applications and demos task force

From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 14:45:24 -0800
Message-ID: <823043AB1B52784D97754D186877B6CF04894E23@xch-nw-12.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP" <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>, "Aditya A Kalyanpur" <adityak@wam.umd.edu>, "McBride, Brian" <brian.mcbride@hp.com>
Cc: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
No apologies necessary, it is critical to include justification of the
benefits of using Semantic Web technologies.
 
Mike
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of NANNI Marco
FTRD/DMI/SOP
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 8:40 AM
To: Aditya A Kalyanpur; McBride, Brian
Cc: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: RE: On a possible role for the applications and demos task
force
 
Hi, 
To continue on this way, i think that Web-accessible distributed
applications developpers and ABOVE ALL people wich have not only to
decide what technical solutions will be used but ABOVE ALL to convince
the "cash dispensers" that we really need SW to increase something
(number of users, quality of service,...) with a real ROI, NEED some
"flashing" and sexy examples.
For example, it's very difficult for me to convince my big Information
System  department 
to accept to deploy SW application for internals users (and I don't even
speak about externals one!!!!) only with paper and words.Does anybody
has really read some documents from projects like OntoWeb, and others. I
don't think that a lot of "basic" readers have succeed in the challenge
to read entirely the guidelines. :-)
What they want to see/hear  is for example : 
        "Here is an already existing, running, deployed and very
(critical) important service/application developped without SW technics,
and now here is THE SAME one 
with SW technics. As you CAN SEE i can offer these new features only
thanks to SWT 
and these old ones are more valuable etc..." 
Perhaps that we also can consider such a point : even if a SW
application is not 
developped according to the RESEARCH AREA agreed theorical guidelines
describing 
the BEST way to use all the features of a language for example (OWL,
RDFS), I think we have, atleast  for this task, to present the global
benefits we can have without being to much rigourous accepting perhaps
such not very "beautiful" applications.
I know that it's only a very basic and low level point of view, i'm
sorry (and industrial user point of view i think) but it would be a good
thing for me to find a demo presenting things in such a way. I don't say
that this is the only important output i need but i would like to be
sure i could find atleast this output. 
So, perhaps i missed something but : do we have defined or choosen the
"profile" of the potential readers for all our outputs (documents or
demos)?
If "basic" readers are not in the scope of the WG ok, it's not a problem
but 
if the scope is only readers already aware with SWT perhaps that they
don't really need 
too much formal "instructions" because they already can find such
instructions elsewhere 
Anyway  do you think we  can find two versions of the same "application"
: 
                - one without SWT 
                - the same with SWT 
        I know it will be very difficult to find already existing,
running, deployed and very (critical) important service/applications but
let's try atleast to find and already existing, running, deployed  and
perhaps simple applciation.
Best regards , 
MArco NANNI 
  
-----Message d'origine----- 
De : public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org 
[ mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]De la part de Aditya A Kalyanpur 
Envoye : jeudi 25 mars 2004 21:31 
A : McBride, Brian 
Cc : public-swbp-wg@w3.org 
Objet : Re: On a possible role for the applications and demos task force

 
I agree with Brian - the ADTF should provide simple apps that are easily

adaptable for end users, and moreover should be based on 'best practice'

principles (/examples) developed by the other TF's. 
But just to elaborate on that, I feel average web users would be more 
comfortable adopting semweb practices, when they see good, complete 
working examples in place. Most semweb tools today focus on the pieces 
(ontology editors, markup tools, RDF stores, reasoners etc) but there
are 
very few that provide a framework to tie these together to 
construct something more meaningful and productive. I think we should
move 
towards such a flexible framework (a plugin or service-oriented 
architecture) and provide some sample apps within this framework (such
as 
an image based semantic search, maybe I'm getting carried away:) to 
basically demonstrate the true potential of the semantic web (by 
presenting the larger picture) to novices.. 
just an idea to throw out there.. 
-Aditya 
 
On Thu, 25 Mar 2004, McBride, Brian wrote: 
> 
> At the tech plenary there was a lot of support for the WG doing
something in 
> the area of applications and demos.  I'd like to start a discussion
around 
> what such a task force might do.  I hope this will stimulate others to

> propose their own, no doubt different ideas and as the scope of the
work 
> becomes clearer a task force leader may emerge. 
> 
> A key objective of the WG is to encourage deployment of the semantic
web.  I 
> suggest that a useful thing for the applications/demos WG to do is to 
> provide simple examples that users can adapt to their own needs.  This
is in 
> the spirit of the early days of the web, when, it is said, folks were 
> encouraged to put up web pages because they could take an existing web
page 
> and adapt it to meet their needs. 
> 
> The idea I would like to float is that that the Applications and Demos
task 
> force (ADTF) should not set out to develop applications and demos on
its 
> own, but might produce a framework for collecting demos and
illustrations 
> developed by other task forces. 
> 
> For example, consider the "explain the mess" task force.  I imagine it
might 
> produce a document that explains when to use RDF, RDFS, OWL-lite, DL
and 
> Full.  Might it not also aim to produce illustrative examples of each
of 
> these uses.  Similarly, I'd expect there to be examples of the output
from 
> the RDF in XHTML task force, perhaps examples of the use of a wordnet 
> ontology, and design patterns, ... And topic maps and ... 
> 
> In RDFCore, and I think also in Owl, when there was an issue and a
decision 
> was made, one or more test cases were produced to illustrate that
decision. 
> I am suggesting that analagously in Best Practices, when a best
practice is 
> produced, it should not only be described in a document, but one or
more 
> illustrations of that practice should be produced.  Ideally such 
> illustrations will be easily adaptable by folks to their own needs. 
> 
> Brian 
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 17:49:08 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 29 March 2004 17:49:10 EST