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

RE: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion

From: Jeff Pollock <jeff.pollock@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:05:28 -0800
To: "'Wilson, MD \(Michael\)'" <m.d.wilson@rl.ac.uk>, "'Kingsley Idehen'" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "'W3C SWEO IG'" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009e01c714aa$1e598e90$e9a61990@JEFFX60S>

Hmmm... not the way I read it.  As the UI and App layer extends left of the
trust, proof, and logic layers, I see invisible lines to each, thusly
implying that UI and Apps can be built directly to either: trust, proof,
unifying logic, or sparql directly.

I don't claim to know what the "unifying logic" layer is supposed to be in
the W3C world, but as an architect, I would see Java as a unifying logic
that, based on several open source API packages, allows me to write
applications that leverage rules, ontology, and sparql - which is in turn
the main declarative interface to rdf.

I would never defend these kinds of 'refrigerator' diagrams as a 100%
accurate depiction of any architecture, and often rail against them...but
their utility is in communicating the SPIRIT of how one "might" go about
interacting with various layers.  At best, it's a loose guidance for the
community to agree on which specs "use" or "import" other specs, but the
diagram itself should never been viewed as 100% correct representation for
the physical interactions between layers.

Given the circumstances, this IMHO captures enough of the spirit of the
semweb stack for this group to worry about other things.  I don't think that
the "layer cake" will ever stop a CIO from investing in "x" technology ---
but other misperceptions might...

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Wilson, MD (Michael)
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:46 AM
To: jeff.pollock@oracle.com; Kingsley Idehen; W3C SWEO IG
Subject: RE: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion


The main problem with that diagram is the User Interface & Applications
layer at the top which suggests that applications can only be built on
top of the Trust layer, and not on top of each layer. 

Michael Wilson
Manager, UK & Ireland Office of W3C
e-Science Centre
CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK
Fax: +44 1235 445831


The information contained in this message is confidential and intended
only for the individual named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, or responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient
you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying,
or disclosure of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful.

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Pollock
Sent: 30 November 2006 17:30
To: 'Kingsley Idehen'; 'W3C SWEO IG'
Subject: RE: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion


The diagram Ivan sent here:

Implies to me that RDF needn't use XML.  Although I don't personally
feel that the XML serialization of RDF is such a big market issue, real
or perceived, the picture there seems to address the concern quite

Warm Regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:18 AM
Subject: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion


My initial attempt at a revised Cake is at: 

The focus right now is fixing the XML placement issues such that RDF the
Data Model and its optional XML serialization format are distinct.

I have also added a Data Provider / Data Source layer since the URI/IRIs
are "Resource Identifiers" for  Data which has to come from somewhere



Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 18:07:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:51 UTC