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

Re: Semantic Web discussions lists: rdf-logic, rdf ig, www-talk, ...

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Sun, 5 Nov 2000 14:18:18 -0000
Message-ID: <002301c04733$617a8ee0$87ed93c3@z5n9x1>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, "Aaron Swartz" <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Dear Mr. Brickley (et al.),
> I'm not against the idea of a distinct SW list, just feel
> it would need some careful scoping to avoid creating further
> confusion.
The main reason advocating a Semantic Web only list is so that there is a
focus for the very generalized conversations that don't really have a home
on the RDF lists. The problem is that a lot of discussions are both generic
*and* discuss RDF etc., and so it is hard to fathom where to send comments.
www-talk is officially the best place for discussions of a genaric nature,
and the RDF lists for technical discussions. The idea (I thought, much to my
mistake) was that semantic-web was the cross over. The very fuzzy nature of
the SW suggests hat we need places to direct our efforts. For instance, I
wrote a small resource for the SW (http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/) but
found so little information it's unreal.
Maybe it is better to separate the SW concept from some of the legacy
technologies that it will be forced to use...for a while at least.
I have had a long look through the www-talk archives, only a few weeks ago,
and I found them very interesting. In fact, that's what prompted me to start
discussing the Semantic Web. When you say:-
> But the Semantic Web will _be_ the Web - we're not talking about a 'new'
> Web here, just finishing off the job with the existing one.
I do realize that it is based on WWW architectures (DNS, URIs, etc.), but
there is some separation in the main medium HTML=>XML=>RDF
I believe that there are some examples to suggest that the Semantic Web is
closer to TimBL's original visions than what we have now, but his opinions
on the matter don't appear to be clear to me. The Semantic Web will never
have a clear specification as such, because it is a developers movement
rather than a specification. RDF is a step in the right direction, but I
dont think it will do for the SW what HTML did for the WWW.
One of the main problems is the lack of semantic output media: I will post a
note about Semantic Document Frameworks tomorrow.

What do you suggest the W3C do with the semantic-web@w3.org list? Could the
W3C publish clear statuses on all of the RDF/SW/Talk lists?

Here is a short list of what (IMHO) are the main topics discussed:-
1. The Semantic Web generically
2. Current technologies for the SW (RDF etc.)
3. Current applications of the technologies in 2.
4. The transition from WWW to SW
5. Development of new SW technologies
6. A mixture of any of the above

Thanks again for clearing up (most of) the confusion!

Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
----------------------------------------------------
The Semantic Web: A Resource - http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
Mysterylights.com - http://www.mysterylights.com/
----------------------------------------------------
"The Internet; is that thing still around?" - Homer J. Simpson
Received on Sunday, 5 November 2000 09:22:01 GMT

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