W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2005

[ADTF,ALL] goals for f2f

From: Libby Miller <libby@asemantics.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 08:56:03 -0800 (PST)
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <20051104084643.P59872@skutsje.san.webweaving.org>

Bit late this, sorry. I delayed sending it because I wasn't sure that a
facetted browser for the DOAP files we've collected was plausible for
basically arbitrary DOAP - i.e. would work without e.g. classification
categories. I've convinced myself that it would work - see the version of
SWED at:


- which is a little flakey because of language encoding issues but gives a
flavour of what we could do. Categorisation would enhance it I think but
search gives you some (try searching for 'RDF').

hi all,

I had an action to send an email about the goals for the face to face for
the ADTF taskforce. This is it.

I haven't had any email responses to my mail asking other members of the
taskforce for preferences about the future of the taskforce[1]. I have
spoken with Fabian about it, and he and I agreed that, so far

- in general a list of DOAP files for semweb projects is useful [2]
- the list is not growing
- there's no 'viewer' for the list showing that it's useful

We have also had some discussions about moving this TF work to the
semantic web interest group.

For the future of the TF I suggest:

1. Using the remainder of the chartered time of SWBP to
 - make the DOAP list parsable as RDF to allow others to harvest it more
effectively into their own systems
 - set up a version of SWED [3] or similar to show the possibilities of
the DOAP files in a facetted browser
 - doing a short writeup describing what was done and how to use it

2. Transfer the TF work to SWIG at the end of January by
 - creating links from the SWIG homepage with instructions
 - promoting the DOAP list in the various SWIG fora
 - encouraging the use and development of the DOAP list as a community

I propose a short discussion on this approach at the face to face meeting.
If people agree, the main questions are

 - hosting for the facetted browser
 - responsibility for maintenance once it's in SWIG
 - whether classification is needed, i.e. whether we need to do more than
just add the files to the databse or whether we need to add more
information manaually, or persuade the DOAP creators to add
classifications themselves.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Oct/0106.html
[2] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SemanticWebDOAPBulletinBoard
[3] http://www.swed.org.uk/swed/servlet/Entry?action=v&ds=wwite&
Received on Friday, 4 November 2005 16:56:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:45 UTC