- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:13:58 +0100
- To: "Kendall Clark" <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Cc: public-owl-dev@w3.org
On 14/11/06, Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com> wrote: > I consistently fail to understand the import of that kind of claim, > as it seems to suggest that the public Semantic Web is the most > important thing. The (Semantic) Web is a public entity. It seems a straightforward distinction, by definition things that aren't connected to it aren't part of the Web. It follows that systems that are connected to it (or could potentially be connected to it) *are* the most important thing. > Doesn't that ignore the history of the Web itself, which, as we all > know, got a significant boost -- several such boosts, actually -- > from enterprise intranet adoption. But now for the Semantic Web the > equivalent of "intranet adoption" seems not only not to matter but > seems to be a problem. I absolutely agree that "intranet adoption" and development is hugely valuable. The point is only relevant when conflicts occur - in such cases, (IMHO) priority should be given to solutions that show better compatibility with the (Semantic) Web. > I don't get it. > > Lots more people are using OWL than are using it "on the public Web". > Isn't that a *good* thing? I think it is. :> It is good to hear of significant off-Web adoption of OWL. Incidentally I'm currently working on a medical records system that uses RDF - it's data you really wouldn't want public on the Web. No problem. A problem only arises if the technologies developed in such an environment are incompatible with the Web. The reassurances so far with regard to mappings go a long way to alleviating such concerns. All I'm actually asking is that care is taken to ensure any new stuff won't break the Web. I don't think that's a lot to expect from a Web Ontology Language. Cheers, Danny. -- http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 15 November 2006 11:21:21 UTC