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

RE: [Messaging] Questionnaires

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 03:12:03 -0500
To: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org, public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBB0A2465.3ED849E7-ON85257234.002CF165-85257234.002D0AE3@us.ibm.com>

Hi Orri,

I don't know if you were subscribed to this list when Kingsley posted your 
comments a few days back. I'm reposting my response in case you didn't 
have a chance to see it the first time through. I'm sure we can discuss 
this more on the telecon this week.

Orri Erling wrote on 11/23/2006 06:48:58 AM:

> Hi
> 
> 
> The questionnaires as they now stand seem very technology centric.  This 
is
> of course understandable since they are about adoption of a technology.
> These might however better engage the recipient if these were set in a 
more
> application centric manner.  A CIO or CTO or even a web developer  may 
have
> a rather vague idea of the semantic web, hence something to bring it in
> focus can be useful.
> 
> Thus, for the ones who say they do not have SW involvement, after all 
these
> are the more important target, we could have a few additional questions.
> 
> 
> For example, on the enterprise side:
> 
> "If you are not using or considering semantic web technologies for EDI, 
1.
> do you have significant need for combining  data from heterogenous 
sources
> in the first place?  2. What do you use for this, e.g. data warehouse
> maintained by batch imports from different sources with customized ETL?
> Applications directly accessing diverse RDBMS's?   Do you see benefit in
> introducing a semantic layer for homogenizing the terminology and 
structures
> of disparate relational schemas, XML documents etc?"
> 
> The last is a leading question.  Maybe better ask "How do you see the
> maintainability and agility of your present EDI?"

Hi Kingsley and Orri,

At the face-to-face, we discussed a variety of questions similar to these 
(though perhaps in a bit less detail). We decided in the end that in the 
interest of encouraging a high response rate to the questionnaires, it 
would probably be best to limit the initial questions to a small number of 

relatively simple questions. As we gather the responses, we will follow-up 

with some/all of the responders with more focused / detailed questions to 
help us build effective SW core and industry-specific messaging. I'd also 
be wary of including such specifics on the initial questionnaire as it 
pigeonholes the responders into thinking about only certain areas in which 

SW technologies are applicable, whereas there is value for our messaging 
in gaining an open-ended idea of what problems areas people currently 
associate with SW technologies. 

I think it would be a great idea to start taking these more specific 
questions and building a rough draft of potential questions for follow-up 
questionnaires on the wiki.

Lee

> 
> On the web developer side:
> 
> "Do you use tagging?  In the applications you develop?  In the 
applications
> you use (Technorati, del.icio.us etc.)   Do you find that it is easy to
> combine data from different social networks, e.g. Myspace, LinkedIn? 
What
> are the application scenarios you feel cannot be adequately addressed by
> tagging plus full text search, if any?  Do you encounter issues, either 
as a
> user or developer, with information overload?  Is there some needed
> classification of incoming information  that a cpombination of tags and 
spam
> filtetering does not do?"
> 
> "What are the web sites/services/information feeds that you would most 
need
> to integrate/merge/compare?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course these questions implicitly contain our assumppttions on what 
the
> semantic web can offer.   These cannot contain the full potential of the 
SW,
> as this is so far undiscovered.  Still, we wish to educate the public 
about
> the better understood benefits and applications first, hence asking 
about
> them is compatible with the mission.
> 
> 
> Orri
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 28 November 2006 08:12:18 GMT

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