Bijan Parsia wrote: > > I think we would do well to 1) have a lightweight introduction (whether > separate or not is a different issue) and 2) to make the normative > documentation more accessible and 3) to encourage a rich documentation > ecosystem that survives and thrives beyond the working group. It's clear > that, at least at the W3C, a lot of the proposed activity belongs in SWEO: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/ > > """The scope of SWEO group includes: > the development and collection of use and business cases, stemming from > both user and vendor companies, and documenting the value of Semantic > Web technologies > identifying possible vertical markets and application areas for the > Semantic Web > production of clear guidelines for tutorials, presentations, teaching > materials, FAQ-s, etc, targeted at different audiences""" > Guys, let us not argue with SWEO (neither pro or con). The SWEO charter expires in two months, it is therefore highly irrelevant for the discussion in the OWL WG. There may or may not be a new SWEO; if yes, it may or may not have a different charter; all this is in the air. Ivan > > Cheers, > Bijan. > -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 14:46:04 UTC