W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: XML.com 'Semantic Web: A Primer' article (the SW and you ;-)

From: <ssarkar@ayushnet.com>
Date: 3 Nov 2000 09:43:46 -0800
Message-ID: <20001103174346.8468.cpmta@c001.snv.cp.net>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, danbri@w3.org

I agree with the view that 'SW' should be
part of our discussion here. We should discuss
RDF from a broader perspective (sometimes in
conjunction with XHTML, XSLT and databases).

--s sarkar (ssarkar@ayushnet.com)

On Fri, 03 November 2000, Dan Brickley wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting piece from Edd Dumbill appeared on XML.com yesterday:
> 
> 
>   http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/11/01/semanticweb/index.html  [[
>   The Semantic Web: A Primer 
>   by Edd Dumbill
>   The question "What is the Semantic Web?" is being asked with increasing 
>   frequency. While mainstream media is content with a high level view, XML
>   developers want to know more, and discover the substance behind the
>   vision.
>   ]]
> 
>  
> This strikes me as a useful article, both in terms of providing a
> discussion strawman on what 'Semantic Web' might mean in practical terms,
> as well as for surveying some key technologies, making the point that
> XHTML, XSLT and mainstream XML apps will be criticial tools for the SW.
> 
> Rather than gabble on about what I think Semantic Web might mean 
> I'm pretty curious to hear what folk on this list understand by the
> phrase. As Edd points out, we could do with some more accessible materials
> in this area. Some for example associate it with the
> logic/inference/AI/KR end of things (ie. the www-rdf-logic theme) others
> take a broader perspective, with the logic machinery being one set of
> tools that we need to bring to bear. While we shouldn't get too hung up on
> a slogan, I think it is important to have some discussion here on
> 'Semantic Web' since for many of us there is a larger goal, towards which
> RDF as-we-now-know-it is just a means to an end. If we're going to get to
> the Semantic Web (for some interpretation of that phrase), I know a lot
> of the work of getting there will be done participants (and lurkers) on
> this mailing list. I'm particularly keen to see 'SW' fleshed out in terms
> of real, buildable apps (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ has some nice
> examples) - ideally, the discussion that Edd's article initiates will help
> us characterise buildable SW projects. In our first year, much of the
> discussion here has focussed on RDF in itself, rather than on what we all
> hope to build on top of it. It's about time we balanced that with a little
> discussion of what we all want out of this SW business. My own
> (eg. [1]) answer is pretty simple: I want RDF because it seems a good way
> of getting the Web that was originally proposed. Wondering how the rest
> of you see it,
> 
> Dan
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/1999/11/11-WWWProposal/thenandnow
> 
> --
> mailto:danbri@w3.org
Received on Friday, 3 November 2000 12:44:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT