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

Re: [Information Gathering] next steps: syndication, good weblocation

From: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 16:42:59 -0400
To: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF75984EF2.5B68809F-ON852572AF.00710706-852572AF.0071CC37@us.ibm.com>

Kingsley Idehen wrote on 03/31/2007 11:45:01 AM:

> 
> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > Kingsley Idehen wrote on 03/30/2007 09:51:21 AM:
> > 
> >> Leo Sauermann wrote:
> >> 
> >>> Hi Information Gatherers,
> >>>
> >>> I thought about how to proceed with the user-interface for 
visualizing 
> >>> 
> >
> > 
> >>> the integrated data, looking at the discussing.
> >>>
> >>> It seems the effort to do the syndication is manageable, as Kingsley 

> >>> has proven by implementing the aggregation already.
> >>> We should focus on the format that we want people to make their data 

> >>> sources available in. Once the data format is settled, and Kingsleys 

> >>> integration works, we setup a website on some W3C URL related to 
SWEO 
> >>> to make it accessible.
> >>> And we can then encourage independent 3rd parties to aggregate the 
> >>> data and provide the interface
> >>>
> >>> I asked Susie for her thoughts about this and she proposes exactly 
> >>> this, stick to information gathering.
> >>>
> >>> Making a web interface that is user-friendly (especially newbie 
> >>> friendly) and is managed by W3C is tricky, because W3C is a 
technology 
> >>> 
> >
> > 
> >>> standardization body and not an education body. We all agree that 
the 
> >>> data has to be under an open license and that anyone can visualize 
it.
> >>> So we will focus our efforts on syndication of data and providing a 
> >>> stable SPARQL endpoint for the data + download facilities (and an 
RSS 
> >>> feed).
> >>> To decide on this, I would propose now to drop the portal ideas for 
> >>> now. Anybody who wants can make a portal, if members of SWEO want to 

> >>> make one, thats a new task force. (to concentrate our energy)
> >>>
> >>> (please give feedback)
> >>>
> >>> best
> >>> Leo
> >>> 
> >
> > I'm afraid that I have to strongly disagree with this. While 
information 
> > gathering is an important prerequisite, I don't think that it, on its 
own, 
> > really contributes to education or to outreach about the Semantic Web. 

> > With data streams of relevant resources, I'm only a bit closer to 
being 
> > able to start to educate my non-SW-believing friends, family, and 
> > coworkers than I was previously. 
> >
> > As I guess I've said in the past, for me the real value comes when we 
have 
> > an interface that can be sliced and diced for various audiences, and 
that 
> > highlights the most accessible, accurate, and effective resources that 
the 
> > SW community has to offer.
> >
> > I must apologize for the fact that I haven't found the time and energy 
to 
> > speak up before now (especially after volunteering for the IG task), 
but I 
> > do think it would be a big mistake for SWEO not to proceed further 
along 
> > this path. I think that the aggregated data sources is a great first 
step, 
> > but without augmenting it with some way to identify the best-of-breed 
> > resources and to attach facets to various resources (what type of 
> > resource, what level of fmailiarity is assumed, what type of audience, 
is 
> > the resource slanted to a particular industry) and then without 
exposing 
> > this in a user-friendly fashion, I think we've actually accomplished 
very 
> > little.
> >
> > I will try my best to put my time where my words are, and--if anyone 
else 
> > agrees with me on this, of course--I'll be happy to spearhead an 
effort to 
> > make use of this data in the way that I see fit. While a single 
individual 
> > can produce the type of user-interface I'm picturing (and even 
generate 
> > the classification data), the ranking bit of my vision requires the 
> > agreement and participation of a larger group of us. So if the group 
feels 
> > that our time is best spent elsewhere, I've spoken my piece and will 
let 
> > it rest. :-)
> >
> > 
> >> Also remember that Exhibit and other Rich Internet Applications 
oriented 
> >> 
> >
> > 
> >> tools also benefit from the fact that most SPARQL Endpoints support 
JSON 
> >> 
> >
> > 
> >> serialization of results.
> >> 
> >
> > Big thumbs-up to this point. SPARQL + exhibit is exactly the type of 
> > approach I'm picturing to building an interface for this data. (Though 

> > I've been playing with exhibit recently, and it may not be exactly 
what 
> > we're looking for. It's very close, though.)
> > 
> Lee,
> 
> I don't think Leo is as far apart from your view as the commentary my 
imply.
> 
> As you know, there are a plethora of routes to building intuitive 
> front-ends to RDF once there is you have SPARQL Endpoints. Personally, I 

> would suggest (the position I've always held) that we all build 
> front-ends to the SWEO aggregated RDF Data Sources. Ultimately, the same 

> should also apply to the actual server collections, we should have RDF 
> server mirrors from the likes of IBM and Oracle along the same lines as 
> what OpenLink is offering (via the Virtuoso base RDF store). We have to 
> practice what we preach at every turn, loose federation of RDF Data is 
> an essential part of this bigger picture :-)
> 
> Once we have the SPARQL Endpoint live, please proceed in the manner 
> you've suggested re. Exhibit. It would also be nice to see a Boca based 
> host of the RDF data also.
> 
> To conclude, I violently agree!

Hi Kingsley,

While I'm glad that you think you violently agree with me, your above 
comments don't reflect my opinions at all... so let me try again.

>From an _education and outreach_ point of view:

I don't care *at* *all* where the data is hosted. I don't care at all who 
owns the domains, whose software runs the store, whose SPARQL endpoints 
are used, or whether the data is completely decentralized and federated or 
whether its aggregated into a single store. To me, these are details, the 
results of which have almost no effect on the success of an education 
effort around Semantic Web information resources.

I also don't care whether there are 4 or 5 or 10 or 1 user interfaces that 
consume the data; instead, I care that there is *one* *good* and 
accessible way of getting at the data, that doesn't require the consumer 
to know anything at all about the Semantic Web--or to have any assumed 
level of technical competence--to benefit from.

What I care about and think is important for our education and outreach 
efforts is for us to do the work to identify what the cream of the crop 
SemWeb information resources are, and then organize them based on which 
ones are most useful for which types of people. To do this, I believe that 
we need to augment the existing information resources with:

a/ some way to identify the best (this could be digg.com-style ratings, 
google-style rankings (don't think we need that level of complexity), or 
even just simple "best of breed" flags)

b/ appropriate predicates and editorial work to associate information 
resources with the appropriate audience that each is aimed at (both on a 
technical capability level and on a industry/domain level)

I hope this clears up what I've been trying to say.

Lee


> 
> Kingsley
> 
> > Lee
> > 
> > 
> >> -- 
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Kingsley Idehen         Weblog: 
http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> >> President & CEO 
> >> OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> >
> >
> > 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Kingsley Idehen         Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
> President & CEO 
> OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 31 March 2007 20:43:07 UTC

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