W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > sw99@w3.org > October to December 1999

Re: Semantic Web Activity Proposal v1.5

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
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.20.9912151629350.29617-100000@tux.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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Friday, 19 August 2005 11:10:28 GMT