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

RE: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion

From: Wilson, MD \(Michael\) <m.d.wilson@rl.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:39:02 -0000
Message-ID: <677CE4DD24B12C4B9FA138534E29FB1D0120B22E@exchange11.fed.cclrc.ac.uk>
To: <jeff.pollock@oracle.com>, "Kingsley Idehen" <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, "W3C SWEO IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>

Jeff

Mostly, yes - how do we get the right story to bring about the CIO
investment decision in SW technology?

One of the selling points of the SW to CIOs is the argument that an
investment in technology at any one layer (requiring those below it) can
provide applications which give return on investment (ROI) that
justifies the technology choice, and that the staff that have been
trained for a layer will continue to be a justified investment when the
layers above are adopted, since higher layers build on the skills of
lower ones.

The contrast for those who experienced the expert systems boom and bust
of the 1980s, or the grand AI view is where massive investment in a full
architecture with staff training and method adoption is required before
any ROI. 

Since this is a positive argument for the SW it is worth checking
whether any presentation of the SW appears to fight against it - and
then avoid the conflict.

Michael Wilson
Manager, UK & Ireland Office of W3C
e-Science Centre
CCLRC Rutherford Appleton Laboratory
Chilton, Didcot, Oxon, OX11 0QX, UK
http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/ukofficecontact.html
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: Jeff Pollock [mailto:jeff.pollock@oracle.com] 
Sent: 30 November 2006 18:05
To: Wilson, MD (Michael); 'Kingsley Idehen'; 'W3C SWEO IG'
Subject: RE: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion

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


Jeff

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
http://www.w3c.rl.ac.uk/ukofficecontact.html
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


Kingsley-

The diagram Ivan sent here:
http://www.w3.org/2006/07/layerCake-4.png

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
nicely.

Warm Regards,

-Jeff-


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2006 9:18 AM
To: 'W3C SWEO IG'
Subject: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion


All,

My initial attempt at a revised Cake is at: 
http://myopenlink.net:8890/DAV/home/kidehen/gallery/my_photos/Semantic_W
eb_S
tack_Rev1.png

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
:-)

-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 18:39:21 GMT

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