W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rww@w3.org > November 2017

Re: The ‘Web’ that’s missing in the Semantic Web

From: Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2017 19:35:34 +0000
Message-Id: <D80A97AA-6B8B-4AD3-9572-F619ED17C7AA@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Semantic Web IG <semantic-web@w3.org>, public-rww <public-rww@w3.org>, DBpedia <Dbpedia-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net>, pragmaticweb@lists.spline.inf.fu-berlin.de
To: Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com>

> On 3 Nov 2017, at 22:49, Sebastian Samaruga <ssamarug@gmail.com> wrote:
> But, what could Semantic Web ‘era’ look like? An attempt I’ve made is the following:
> Semantic Business Integration. It is for ‘solving’ (domain) Purposes. Interface: query strings (in a steps flow of sub queries). Results: Knowledge (aggregated steps for objective, key/value, items. Linked rels between steps). RW / IO (QA Flows).
> Maybe I try to make my point in why Semantics remains so ‘useless’ for humans and so superfluous for machines. Semantic integration between machines, sooner or later, must leverage the adoption of a new concept of Web, 3.0 or whatever, for humans.

Semantic interoperability is key to enabling open markets of data and services, and there is plenty of work still to be done to realise the potential.

There has been a lot of media attention to the Internet of Things (IoT), but so far, the IoT is still at a very early stage, and is being held back by a lack of interoperability. McKinsey and Forester both predict a huge potential across many application sectors. W3C’s work on the Web of Things seeks to unlock this potential through an object oriented abstraction layer for applications that complements the work by IoT alliances and standards development organisations on the underlying IoT technology standards.

For open markets, we need open standards for producers and consumers to trade data and services. Semantic models are important for discovery, adaptation to variations across vendors, and composition of services. There are plenty of challenges to overcome, but the potential is clear for reducing the costs and risks for stakeholders and unlocking the network effect.

Rather than using APIs to perform operations on remote datasets, sometimes it is more appropriate to download datasets for local processing. W3C’s Data Exchange Working Group focuses on catalogues for data sets. Here too, we need shared vocabularies for describing datasets to simplify application development. There is plenty of potential for open data to drive work on this.

Shared vocabularies need to be developed by communities of stakeholders with a shared interest. I am trying to gather input on how to make W3C even better for web data standardisation in a study supported by the Open Data Institute.

See: https://goo.gl/forms/qiQ5smQ7U1qTl0fp1 <https://goo.gl/forms/qiQ5smQ7U1qTl0fp1>
Dave Raggett <dsr@w3.org> http://www.w3.org/People/Raggett
W3C champion for the Web of things & W3C Data Activity Lead
Received on Saturday, 4 November 2017 23:56:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Saturday, 4 November 2017 23:56:27 UTC