Re: Introduction

A short supplement: I imagine the vocabulary as a kind of superset of elements from existing standards (DocBook, DITA, S1000D, Mumasy etc.). That way classes of the vocabulary could be used with RDFa’s „typeof“ attribute to add the semantics to the respective XMLs.

Best regards
Sebastian

> Am 10.11.2015 um 21:15 schrieb Sebastian Furth <sebastian.furth@denkbares.com>:
> 
> Hi Felix,
> 
> thank you for your reply! I appreciate your idea of discussing the item „Developing an Ontology Specification for a general purpose representation for Technical Documentation in the Semantic Web“.
> 
> At first, however, I would also like to introduce myself to the other list members. My name is Sebastian Furth and I work as a consultant and developer for the denkbares GmbH - a consultancy in the fields of knowledge management and artificial intelligence, located in Würzburg. I have been researching in the field of technical documentation for more than 3 years and also gained some practical experiences in industrial projects.
> 
> Let’s get back to topic:
> I think you are right, that most people are not keen on changing their XML workflows. RDFa is an elegant way to embed RDF statements in XML.
> However, in my opinion this does not stand in conflict with the goal of a „general purpose“ ontology for technical documentation - although we should rather call it a general vocabulary. Such a vocabulary could provide classes and properties (the semantics) that are necessary in the context of technical documents, e.g. for structural elements like sections, paragraphs, tables, lists, procedures etc.
> Then it would be up to the user to embed the semantics in the existing XML or to write pure RDF.
> 
> @Felix: From your experience, do you think this could be practicably applicable and useful?
> 
> I would really appreciate if we could attract some more participants for the group. From denkbares-side we’ll try to inform people in our professional network that are concerned with technical documentation. Some representatives from Tekom would be great. It would be great if all group members could check their network for people that might be interested in this topic.
> 
> I’m looking forward to feedback and suggestions to the above topics!
> 
> Best regards!
> Sebastian
> 
> 
>> Am 10.11.2015 um 09:21 schrieb Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>:
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> following Sebastian’s mail, let me introduce myself. I am Felix Sasaki, I have been working in the area of multilingual processing and standardisation of Web content in W3C since 2005. During that time, I have been involved in technical documentation frequently e.g. at events like Tekom.
>> 
>> Looking at the list of topics
>> 
>> "
>> Define Use Cases for Technical Documentation in the Semantic Web
>> Review existing Standards for Technical Documentation
>> Develop an Ontology Specification for a general purpose representation for Technical Documentation in the Semantic Web
>> Collect tools that support authoring
>> publishing and accessing Technical Documentation in the Semantic Web
>> Define Test Cases / Competency Questions for the Use Case
>> „
>> 
>> I am wondering if we should already discuss one item:
>> "Develop an Ontology Specification for a general purpose representation for Technical Documentation in the Semantic Web“
>> From experience with semantic technologies and XML, developing an ontology that is general purpose for technical document may not find a lot of traction. People want to keep their XML workflows and augment them with semantic information, using e.g. mechanisms like RDFa. What do people think about this?
>> 
>> Also, the group currently does not have a lot of participants. Events like Tekom or Markupforum may be a good venue to encourage people to join.
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Felix
>