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

Re: Semantic Web Layer Cake Update Suggestion

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 16:58:28 -0500
Message-ID: <456F5404.5020206@openlinksw.com>
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
CC: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>

Sandro Hawke wrote:
>> 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.=20
>> 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.
> One conclusion we might draw from this idea: we should target
> organizations that don't have XML expertise.  XML and RDF are different,
> of course, but they are *close enough* that it's hard to justify
> learning both.  In other words, make the point that you don't need to
> know ANYTHING ABOUT XML in order to use Semantic Web technogies.
I concur!
> So maybe that's:
>      Myth: RDF is based on XML
>      Fact: No, RDF can use XML when it makes sense to do so, but RDF
>            works very well without XML, and people can use Semantic Web
>            technologies quite effectively without knowing anything about
>            XML.
> (This obvious relates to Kingsley's issue with the traditional layer
> cake, which shows RDF based on XML.)
> Of course, let's not forget the flip side:
>      Myth: RDF and XML are competing technologies
>      Fact: Although users sometimes do have to make a choice between
>            them, RDF and XML generally solve very different problems.
>            Do spreadsheet programs and word processing programs compete?
>            Yes, a user has to chose one or the other for a given task,
>            but in general one is much better suited than the other, so
>            there is little real competition.
>    -- Sandro


I guess we await your ESW Wiki  updates :-)

Received on Thursday, 30 November 2006 21:58:39 UTC

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