- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 16:36:10 -0500 (EST)
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- cc: sw99@w3.org
On Wed, 15 Dec 1999, Dan Connolly wrote: > OK... I think I've made enough progress that we can usefully > discuss it tomorrow morning; I hereby release the "write-lock". > > Activity Proposal: The Semantic Web Development Initiative > http://www.w3.org/1999/11/SW/ > http://www.w3.org/1999/11/SW/Overview.html > $Revision: 1.5 $ $Date: 1999/12/15 20:24:17 $ $Author: connolly $ > > "Executive Summary > > We propose to continue the W3C Metadata Activity as a > Semantic Web Development Iniatiative: > 1.in general, continue the work of the RDF Interest Group, > i.e. > coordinating implementation and deployment of RDF. > 2.in particular, apply XML and RDF technologies to the W3C > Web site to increase the level of automation of the W3C > Process. " Looks good, though obviously needs fleshing out. One query: by executively summarising the work as falling into RDF IG and Eat-our-own-dogfood activities (1 and 2 above) it becomes unclear what attitude we're taking to the activities listed in the doc that don't fall clearly into either category. Specifically, we list three categories of application that we're interested in prioritising: (digital) library stuff, site management/workflow and tools (storage/query/inference). The work on W3C's own site and information management is clearly covering the 2nd of these, so we know that W3C effort will actually be spent on progressing this area. The other two areas (library, tools) are left somewhat in limbo: we don't say if W3C efforts will be limited to RDF IG evangelism/coordination of external opensource efforts, or whether W3C team will be actually building things in these categories. Is it your expectation that the library and tools angles will in practice have to be implemented/explored within W3C for (2.) above to be feasible? Dan -- danbri@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 15 December 1999 16:36:11 UTC