W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > April 2007

Target audience for FAQ?

From: Uldis Bojars <uldis.bojars@deri.org>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:07:22 +0100
To: 'Benjamin Nowack' <bnowack@appmosphere.com>, 'Susie M Stephens' <STEPHENS_SUSIE_M@LILLY.COM>
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Message-id: <01MFAS9UWJ4Q007GJE@beacon.nuigalway.ie>

Important question: What is the target audience for the FAQ (and how much do
we assume they already know)? 

Is it:
 - general web users (w/o detailed knowledge of programming, web  design,
XML, ...)
 - web developers (w/o knowledge of RDF, ...)
 - semantic web specialists
 - ... any other group ...

Determines how detailed and precise the FAQ should be. If it is a general
web users / web developers public then some of the FAQ answers may be too
long or complex already (same as what Benjamin wrote earlier). 

Will send the rest of comments on SemWeb FAQ by the end of this week. 


[ http://captsolo.net/info/ ]

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of Benjamin Nowack
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 4:05 PM
To: Susie M Stephens
Cc: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Subject: SWEO / FAQ comments

General impression: Wow! I found some of the individual answers to be a
little long for an FAQ, which I'd expect to be more like a glossary, but
that may be just me.

Some minor, mostly really nitpicking comments:

>"Does the exiisting Web has to be rebuilt for the Semantic Web?"

>"the integration of large, currently"
Drop the "large", perhaps? For me personally, the integration of lots of
small data sources (e.g. RSS feeds, microformats pages) is one of the most
attractive features of semweb techs.

missing "." at the end of the paragraph ;) Maybe re-arrange the parentheses
a bit. Without them, the sub-sentence is just "there are Web Sites". Perhaps
something along [[ This is already happening: there are Web Sites (e.g.,
Sun's white paper collection site, Nokia's support portal for their S60
series device, Oracle's virtual press room, or Harper's online magazine)
that use Semantic Web technologies in the background.

Not sure, I'm not a native speaker, but the "elsewhere" in the links makes
me expect an external reference, and not a local one.
Maybe the additional words aren't needed at all, it's a bit like "Click

Again, lack of proper english on my side, but "large number of users use
=> "*a* large number", or "large number*s*"?
or maybe just "many people use SQL", so that we get rid of one "use"?

s/has to be/have to be/

>"a standard format for data"
"technology", "collection of technologies", "system", "model", "approach to"
or something like that instead of "format".

>"URI-s "ground" the RDF into the Web"
Would s/the RDF/Resource Descriptions/
sound better? or just s/the RDF/RDF/?
I know, "the RDF" isn't wrong, but the rest of the document seems to use
"RDF" only.

s/An general example/A general example/

Not sure, is the double-"l" BE-only or fine with the other AE "z"s in the

s/with a well understood/with well understood/ s/in those language/in those

s/semi-automatically bridge/semi-automatically bridging/ ?
>"Agreement need only be local."
not sure if that's correct (no alternative either ;)

s/modelled/modeled/ ? (see above)

s/within the same applications/within the same application/ ?

s/folksonomies (microformats, tagging, .)/folksonomies, microformats,
tagging, ./ (as MFs are independent of folksonomies) it is necessary *to*
add additional s/keywordsearch/keyword search/ or keyword-search?
The third paragraph starts with "There are, of course, other differences.
Microformats ...". It isn't clear which differences are meant, those between
MFs and ontologies, or between MFs and folksonomies?
>"developed very quickly by communities"
It's actually faster to create an RDF vocab than to go through the MF
process. Folksonomies can be developed very quickly, but they don't tend to
be small.

s/reuse exisiting tools/reuse existing tools/ s/"bridge" to the microformat
approach/"bridge" to the microformats approach/ s/an XHTML1.1 that/an
XHTML1.1 module that/ s/RDF annotation/RDF annotations/ s/integrating
different microformats/integrating different vocabularies/ (or some other
replacement for "microformats" which is a proper/branded name. maybe
something along "integrating different information items") And there is eRDF
which also allows to add semantic markup to HTML.

s/various type/various types/
I don't know where to squeeze it in exactly, but I think one huge add-on of
RDF is the ability to easily re-use combined (= enriched) data as input for
further applications ("mashup chaining"). This bcomes possible as RDF is a
data technology while Web 2.0 focuses on APIs.

"stored in, say, in RDF/XML" => "stored in, say, RDF/XML"

s/violating the the validity/violating the validity/ s/microformat
approach/microformats approach/ And eRDF allows to add a usable subset of
RDF to XHTML w/o breaking validity.


Benjamin Nowack
Received on Wednesday, 11 April 2007 14:07:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:52 UTC