W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > November 2006

RE: Web 2.0 & SW (was Re: RDF resource list in RDF)

From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:33:00 -0000
To: "'Danny Ayers'" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: "'Ivan Herman'" <ivan@w3.org>, <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <20061120173251.2B69B62995EB@postie1.hosting365.ie>


Yep, although the "Web 3.0" piece caused quite a flurry, getting a
front-page mention in the NYT isn't something we can rely on. On the
other hand, the same eyeballs can be reached by pumping the
blogosphere's echo chamber.

[PW] Yes exactly. I've been asked to give a demo at Le Web 3.0 in Paris [1].
The hype is catching so let us take advantage! :) Isn't the SW part of Web
3.0 ;) 

Some of my colleagues think Content Labelling is a huge enabler of the SW
and going to forget part of the next wave of enabling trust. These are very
qualified people too - much more qualified than me (which wouldn't be
difficult, I know!).

[1] http://www.leweb3.com/ 

> I would still like the group to focus more on the Semantic Web and not
RDF.

When reaching out, I don't disagree. Not least because in many minds
RDF is just Yet Another Technology without any distinguishing
features. (Worse still: Yet Another XML Format)

[snip]

But there is a danger with the sans RDF approach of it coming across
as soley Semantic Web the Vision (= pie in the sky, at best "timbl's
science project"...), and losing the SW Technologies (pixie dust? -
deployable now!) aspect.

[PW] Yes agreed. 

When it comes to the Web 2.0 audience, there seems to be more
attention given to neat tricks (and snazzy widgets) than any vision. I
doubt Tim O'Reilly's architectural diagrams and discussions would be
given much credence were it not for the multitude of Web 2.0
applications. Where there is technical innovation, the hands-on aspect
seems critical - Ajax, Ruby on Rails etc.

[PW] Web 2.0 = great because there's a flurry of new interest in all things
Web. Tim O'Reilly's diagrams are pretty meaningless in my opinion. However,
there are some smart implementations. Ajax etc. has only taken us by storm
because people have showed us what can be done with it.

Basically this all comes back to "showing not telling". There are
obvious limitations on what sweo-ig can do in practice here, building
applications takes time. But I suspect there is a lot that could be
done without much effort - mostly joining together various data
sources and putting a nice-looking (off-the-shelf) viewer (/editor) on
top. Not sure how far into such territory the charter reaches. [Hmm, a
prequisite would be the data/tools lists and some intense
brainstorming - maybe calls for another chunk of Wiki...]

[PW] We should be the outreach to initiatives like the Content Label WG and
other real implementations?

Industry analyst James Governor recently made the point succinctly in
a comment [2]  :
[[
...Its as if none of the rest of us get it, and if we just did what
what we were told, in the formats you lay down, the semweb would be
reality. it has a top down feel to it, which is a little orthogonal to
how the web tends to work.

I realise that you are as aware of these issues as anyone, and i dont
want to belabour the point, but one thing i have said before would
benefit the community would be more showing us and less telling. if
you show us cool stuff we'll definitely adopt it.
]]

[PW] Couldn't agree more.

What very much is within sweo-ig's capabilities is to identify (and
help to show) deployed/deployable Semantic Web applications that have
some of the Web 2.0 glitter - for example: Lee & EliasT's awesome
SPARQL Calendar work [3], revyu [4], the Venice Project [5].

Cheers,
Danny.


[1] http://esw.w3.org/topic/SwigAtTp2006
[2] http://dannyayers.com/2006/11/10/not-really-flames-more#comments
[3] http://thefigtrees.net/lee/sw/demos/calendar/
[4] http://revyu.com/
[5] http://www.theveniceproject.com/


-- 

http://dannyayers.com

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.10/541 - Release Date: 20/11/2006
06:48
 
Received on Monday, 20 November 2006 17:33:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:34 GMT