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, ?)

Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:34:57 -0400
To: "Danny Ayers" <Danny.Ayers@talis.com>
Cc: "Ivan Herman" <ivan@w3.org>, "Lee Feigenbaum" <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "Leo Sauermann" <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, "W3C SWEO IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6E1B6C53.CC27DCC9-ON85257325.00704413-85257325.00711061@EliLilly.lilly.com>

This all sounds good to me. I think it's fine for us to identify and
promote a subset of documents that do a good job of explaining the Semantic
Web. I also agree that we should focus on finding resources that already
exist, and if we find gaps to explore options for creating the documents. I
also agree with Ivan, that we should steer clear of rating the different
software tools.

Danny, when we've agreed upon the main document categories, would you like
to take the lead in creating the Wiki framework and adding your ideas for



             "Danny Ayers"                                                 
             s.com>                                                     To 
             Sent by:                  "Leo Sauermann"                     
             public-sweo-ig-re         <leo.sauermann@dfki.de>, "Ivan      
             quest@w3.org              Herman" <ivan@w3.org>               
                                       "Lee Feigenbaum"                    
             07/27/2007 03:27          <lee@thefigtrees.net>, "W3C SWEO    
             PM                        IG" <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>         
                                       RE: tutorial documents - follow up  
                                       to portal plans (lets make          
                                       tutorials     instead of portals,   
                                       or both, ?)                         

> 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?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think we discussed and agreed this
general idea at an early telecon. Anyhow it makes a lot of sense to
highlight a smallish but reasonably comprehensive set of docs. Hard to
say what the optimal size of the canon might be - if we include the
relevant specs, 20 doesn't sound enough, without the specs 15 sounds to
many...I guess we need a few cycles.

> 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.

Sounds reasonable, though I hope it won't come to that - I reckon the
groups time is better spent organising (indexing/linking
to/annotating...) existing material.

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) ?


This looks good enough to get started. Hopefully in the process of
identifying candidate docs we'll notice if any particular target

So how do we choose the docs?
I suggest maybe creating a root-level page on the Wiki, with children
corresponding to each of the 6 categories listed above (which can be
tweaked, and more can be added if necessary). Anyone can propose docs,
and vote for up to 3 in each category by putting their name by them.
("Anyone" - just this group, or should this be opened up to swig/totally

> 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").

Right. Another reason for favouring existing docs!

> 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.

Good idea. For the reason above, I'd rather responsibility for original
authoring was left with the community rather than taken on board by this
group (which of course doesn't preclude anyone from the group stepping
forward and filling any gaps).


Book your free place now at Talis Insight 2007 www.talis.com/insight
Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com
Shared InovationTM

Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those
of Talis Information Ltd. The content of this email message and any files
that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended
recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return
this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an
unauthorised recipient is prohibited.

Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is
registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights
Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
Received on Friday, 27 July 2007 20:35:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:57 UTC