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

Re: [SE] Ontology Driven Architecture Note

From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:50:40 +0100
Message-ID: <4378CE70.5050008@cs.vu.nl>
To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
CC: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>, danbri@w3.org, best-practice list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>

Jim Hendler wrote:
> FWIW, I was planning to raise some objections when this went out - I can 
> do it now -- basically, I think we should remove the discussion of "a 
> collection of semantic webs" which is both naive and misleading (section 
> 3.4 of [1]) -- rather, if you wish to refer to something like "Semantic 
> intra-nets" or such I could live with that -- the point is this content 
> all lives in the same exact address space (the http URI space) and 
> separate documents within corporations or the like, may be protected by 
> firewalls, or by lack of linking, but since they still participate in 
> this same universal space (and via same protocols, standards, etc;) 
> saying "Semantic Webs" is as wrong as referring to separate "Webs" -- 
> the WWW has intranet/intraweb components which are walled-off from 
> others, and this was crucial to early Web development, but it is exactly 
> that these could eventually be linked to others that we have a 
> (singular) World Wide Web, and conveying the idea that somehow the Sem 
> Web is different is both misleading and wrong -- if someone totally 
> foolish wanted to create their own, unregistered URI scheme, keep their 
> ontologies against that scheme (and I guess copy the owl namespace into 
> that space or else they link via owl: concepts), and make sure nothing 
> every touched the rest of the Web it could be a separate Semantic Web, 
> but it seems like an odd and vicious idea to do so.   Linking "islands" 
> of the Semantic Web will eventually be very important to its success, 
> and it is VERY important that we don't convey the idea that these 
> islands are somehow separate -- if we do, then much of the Sem Web 
> technology "degrades" back to the traditional, unlinkable, AI stuff, 
> which is what we are trying to avoid.
>  Tim BL and I had a fight with one of the EU funders who kept trying to 
> refer to multiple Semantic Webs, and seeing SWBP feed into this foolish 
> misconception would not be a good thing


We decided at the Galway ftf that SWBPD will NOT publish this document. 
Instead it will be up for discussion in the SWIG, which I think is 


>  -Jim Hendler
>   AC Rep
>  MIND Lab
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/
> At 8:47 +0000 11/14/05, Phil Tetlow wrote:
>> Dan,
>> How do you suggest we go about SWIG review of the ODA note?
>> It can be found at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/
>> Best Regards,
>> Philip Tetlow
>> Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect)
>> IBM Business Consulting Services
>> Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton,
>> Leeds, LS15 8ZB
>> Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata)
>> Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328
>> Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com

Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718; e-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 17:51:00 UTC

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