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

Re: tutorial documents - follow up to portal plans (lets make tutorials instead of portals, or both, ?)

From: Leo Sauermann <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 18:32:22 +0200
Message-ID: <46AA1E16.1060305@dfki.de>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
CC: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
I think we *have to* rate material in some way. We should not weasel out 
of our responsibility to find good tutorials and material and say "this 
is good material, read it". I would say we should do that.

at the end, we have to come up with a consumable amount of resources:
about 15-20 documents that are most important. This canon should be kept 
updated, but not grow bigger. Anything beyond 20 can be found in the 
information gathering pool or by using google?query=semanticweb

is this SWEO? do we make a canon of essential documents, or should we not?

we could see what material we would like to see in this canon, and check 
what material is out there.
and write something if it doesnt exist. At the moment, the list is 
(union of leo & lees lists)

** A non-technical introduction to the Semantic Web
** What do Semantic Web technologies bring to an enterprise? (a
business-level overview)
** How can existing enterprise applications, services, and data sources
benefit from Semantic Web technologies? (more technical this one)
** Beginners guide for the Semantic Web (giving pointers to RDF-primer,
cool-uris, linked data, RDFS-primer, OWL)
** What RDF tool to chose? (giving pointers to the most popular tools,
jena, sesame, 3store, how to visualize it using treehugger or fresnel,
etc)
** How to move your Web 2.0 application to the Semantic Web 2.0 (web
3.0) ?


Some of this tutorials we are not allowed to write ("the best semweb 
tool on the planet is X") and some we cannot write because we will 
discuss very long about it ("the real approach to URIs").
Others we should rather write as participators in SW deployment group. 
For concise documents, this is probably a good way (an ontology 101 
could be short enough that agreement is reached within this year :-)

 From our past, we were very successfull by asking outsiders to propose 
[CommunityProjects],
we could do the same with [CommunityDocuments], and write them on google 
writely or the esw wiki.


 [CommunityProjects] 
http://esw.w3.org/topic/SweoIG/TaskForces/CommunityProjects

best
Leo

It was Ivan Herman who said at the right time 26.07.2007 09:47 the 
following words:
> Lee pretty much preceded me with his answer...
>
> My main point, in this respect, of the info gathering task to really see
> what is already out there. Opinions seem to differ on whether there are
> already enough tutorials or not out there. It is certainly the case that
> there are probably more of them that I know about; it is the quality of
> those that are in question, really. Before engaging into yet another
> one, that is one of the issues...
>
> There is also the issue whether we, as a group, could _agree_ on a
> specific text, its general tone and content. I am not sure. An intro
> material is so general, that I doubt a bit... Look at the long
> discussion we had on the flyer content. It is more complicated to agree
> on something like that than we anticipated...
>
> An overview of how to use tools, which are the popular ones, etc, is
> indeed an important subject. But then we get to a different, but also
> sticky issue. *If* such a document was issued by a W3C group, in view of
> W3C's role in this area, the world will look at such a document as an
> authoritative document. This is true for all documents we produce but,
> while for, say, an intro on how to pick ontologies we may still live
> with this, with any document on tools we would step on the toes of
> companies and tools that have a real business interest.
>
> Finally: we do have a SW Deployment Group. Today, most of the group
> concentrates on SKOS and RDFa, simply because they do not have a
> manpower. But some of the topics you propose (101 ontology guide) is
> clearly in their charter (they could reasonably say that if some of us
> are interested doing that type of work, we should join that group and do
> the work there...)
>
> So yes, we can/should discuss this type of activities but there are
> *lots* of red flags to consider as for what topic to choose and whether
> we can reasonably do it. Remember Bengee's comment: too many geeks just
> spoil the broth (and block the kitchen) :-)
>
> Ivan
>
>
> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
>   
>> Leo Sauermann wrote:
>>     
>>> Instead of doing a portal...
>>>
>>> So more important and doable may be that we start and initiate some
>>> important tutorials:
>>> * Beginners guide for the Semantic Web (giving pointers to RDF-primer,
>>> cool-uris, linked data, RDFS-primer, OWL)
>>> * What RDF tool to chose? (giving pointers to the most popular tools,
>>> jena, sesame, 3store, how to visualize it using treehugger or fresnel,
>>> etc)
>>> * How to move your Web 2.0 application to the Semantic Web 2.0 (web
>>> 3.0) ?
>>> explaining how to embed rdf into websites, making good uris,
>>> resolution, pick ontologies, giving links to 101-ontology guide,
>>> linked data, etc.
>>>       
>> Hi Leo,
>>
>> It's been my understanding that the whole point of the Info Gathering
>> task was that there's so much great materials out there already that
>> SWEO should avoid writing new materials and instead catalog, organize,
>> and present what is already out there. Also, the group has consistently
>> in the past shied away from going down a road that would require us to
>> anoint certain tools, tutorials, etc. as "the best" or "featured"
>> (though it's been something I've been suggesting all along).
>>
>> That said, perhaps we as a group have changed our mind on these things?
>>
>> If that's the case, though, the materials that I'd like to see us
>> generate are quite different from the ones you say. I'd like to see:
>>
>> * A non-technical introduction to the Semantic Web
>> * What do Semantic Web technologies bring to an enterprise? (a
>> business-level overview)
>> * How can existing enterprise applications, services, and data sources
>> benefit from Semantic Web technologies? (more technical this one)
>>
>> Now, I don't expect SWEO to actually produce all of these, but I did
>> want to point out that we don't all share the same priorities as to what
>> materials are most useful to educate people not already in the Semantic
>> Web community. That was a large reason (I thought) that SWEO didn't set
>> out to generate these sorts of tutorials in the first place.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>>     
>>> And once these documents have a abstract, we could invite external
>>> people to write them with us
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> what do you think?
>>>
>>> best
>>> Leo
>>>
>>>       
>
>   


-- 
____________________________________________________
DI Leo Sauermann       http://www.dfki.de/~sauermann 

Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer 
Kuenstliche Intelligenz DFKI GmbH
Trippstadter Strasse 122
P.O. Box 2080           Fon:   +49 631 20575-116
D-67663 Kaiserslautern  Fax:   +49 631 20575-102
Germany                 Mail:  leo.sauermann@dfki.de

Geschaeftsfuehrung:
Prof.Dr.Dr.h.c.mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender)
Dr. Walter Olthoff
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:
Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
____________________________________________________
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 16:33:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:39 GMT