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

Re: Hacker rally questionnaire draft, take 2

From: Kjetil Kjernsmo <kjetilk@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:37:34 +0100
To: Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Cc: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
Message-Id: <200701171137.35827.kjetilk@opera.com>

On Tuesday 16 January 2007 13:11, Benjamin Nowack wrote:
> Hi, here are some comments re wording (no essential ones, really, I
> think the questions are fine).

Good! :-)

> On 10.01.2007 18:00:50, Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> >The W3C Semantic Web Education and Outreach Interest Group wishes to
> >encourage developers to come together a few practical projects, and
> *for* a few practical projects?


> >hopes to gather a community of developers to write code that solves
> > a current problem. This rally seeks real running code, not
> > vapourware,
> s/gather/gather and support/ perhaps? Not sure what SWEO's planned
> contribution to motivation is..


> >and it seeks to reach a wide user base. We want to encourage people
> > to create something that makes a real difference to people now, and
> > through that, promote the Semantic Web.
> maybe "promote *a* Semantic Web" (as suggested on the wiki
> somewhere), or "a more semantic Web", or "the benefits of a|the
> s|Semantic Web". Just ideas with the basic thought of being as open
> (tech-wise) as possible (working around bad rap hooks).

Hmmm, lets discuss that on the teleconf.

> >So, if you were to decide the project that you think would promote
> > the Semantic Web the most by getting it into people's lives, what
> > would it be?
> hmm, what exactly is the decision about in the end? Will SWEO just
> suggest a "winner", or what will be the next steps? Is it a two-phase
> process where people 1st make suggestions and can then vote on the
> project they'd like to see happen / contribute to? Maybe we should
> add another sentence here?

Lets discuss this on the teleconf too. It is certainly a two-phase 
process, where the first is to get the ideas. I'm not sure how we 
should proceed with step 2. 

I think that we should at the very least publish some good suggestions 
on our website. Independent hackers like to be free, and so, suggesting 
a winner that everyone should commit to is probably not a good idea. I 
think that allowing people to make a written commitment (on a wiki, 
perhaps) to a project is a good idea though. Based on that feedback, we 
may try to support the efforts the best we can, by talking about them, 
blog about them and try recruit people where needed. 

> >2. Rationale:
> >3. Why do you think this project will have a wide impact?
> merge those, perhaps?

Perhaps, I can imagine a rationale saying more about why the person 
making the suggestion finds it interesting, question 3 is more about 
why everyone else would find it interesting. 

> >10. What other technologies could be used to achieve most of the
> > goals of the project, and why are Semantic Web technologies better
> > suited?
> Maybe switch the order of these sentence parts or make it sound a bit
> less "versus"-ish? "What would be the main benefit of using Semantic
> Web technologies to achieve ..." or so. We could also try to combine
> q4 with this one,  la "What do SemWeb techs add and where do you see
> an overlap with other technologies that could be used to accelerate
> the adoption of your solution?"

Yeah, sounds like a good idea. Lets discuss in the teleconf.


Kjetil Kjernsmo
Semantic Web Specialist
Opera Software ASA
Received on Wednesday, 17 January 2007 10:37:45 UTC

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