W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sweo-ig@w3.org > January 2008

Re: Business Presentation

Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 17:07:35 -0500
To: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
Cc: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>, public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAE4CF02D.EF973790-ON852573DF.007976AD-852573DF.00798BBE@EliLilly.lilly.com>

I'm inclined to think that a business presentation doesn't need to discuss
performance. It would be good to add more on future proofing in particular.



             Kingsley Idehen                                               
             sw.com>                                                    To 
             Sent by:                  Lee Feigenbaum                      
             public-sweo-ig-re         <lee@thefigtrees.net>               
             quest@w3.org                                               cc 
                                       W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org> 
             01/29/2008 04:21          Re: Business Presentation           
             Please respond to                                             

Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> I've gone over the business presentation with some colleagues and have
> some more general suggestions. I haven't crafted any text yet myself:
> I'm curious to hear whether people agree or not, though I know we're a
> bit crunched or time. I wasn't comfortable taking Jeff's hard work and
> imposing my views on it :)
> Here are some things we discussed:
> * Could we emphasize future-proofing more? It's a strategic benefit
> and the low risk section starts to talk about it a bit, but I think we
> could emphasize a bit more the constancy of change and how semantics
> prepares an enterprise for adapting to change.
> * Should we address the performance question? The type of early
> adopters and technology enthusiasts that will be excited by this
> presentation will quickly ask about performance. Should this
> presentation address that concern? (Perhaps via general talk of the
> natural overhead of semantics being addressed by modern hardware
> compute power and scalability? I'm not sure.
> * Should we emphasize more that semantics applies to existing (legacy)
> data? The idea of adopting RDF as a standard for virtually
> representing information as it comes out of existing data systems?
> This is to explicitly remove the perception that adopting SW
> technologies requires throwing away existing IT investments.
> * Perhaps "IT maintenance" is an area that could be included in
> spending categories that are positively impacted by SemWeb technologeis?
> * Are the occurrences of "DCP" supposed to be "DCF"?
> * Should "policy compliance" (of which one example is regulatory
> compliance) be included as a strategic fit for semantic technologies?
> (Is it considered covered by enterprise governance?)

Since the document is in community authorship mode, I suggest you inject
these points into the doc as best you can. Investment preservation and
future proofing are hot buttons for all IT decision makers.

> Lee



Kingsley Idehen                Weblog:
President & CEO
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 22:07:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:28:58 UTC