W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > April 2004

RE: Q on scope of ADTF

From: NANNI Marco FTRD/DMI/SOP <marco.nanni@francetelecom.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 10:17:09 +0200
Message-ID: <BBBE5BAA3B351C488C415EA662EA88400B711B@ftrdmel2.rd.francetelecom.fr>
To: "Aditya A Kalyanpur" <adityak@wam.umd.edu>, <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Aditya writes

> Hi All,

> Just a general q on the scope of the ADTF (was discussing this w/
Libby on
> irc) - does the ADTF see itself doing serious software development or
will
> it be mainly pointing to existing cool apps/demos? Though the latter
> seems more reasonable to do, my concern is that most of the existing
stuff
> might not be based on 'best-practice' theory/principles proposed in
our
> TF drafts, and hence some sample applications based on our
illustrative
> examples would be really useful. Ofcourse, the problem will be finding
some
> really useful and somewhat generic real-world scenarios for which we
> provide complete semweb apps

> Cheers,
> Aditya

Hello,

I suppose that creating an Ontology is not software development ?


Anyway, perhaps that we can split the task into 2 phases, one part
following more or less the 
other in time.

First phase : we can reasonnabily hope that it will be possible through
the activities of the other task to gather/define some well defined key
point. I think than more than code we will mostly have (possibly small)
parts of ontologies , perhaps some architecture use case description,
and a very small number of "ready" to run code.

Second phase : for each key point we can :
			- try to look for existing (pieces of)
application/ontologies which can illustrate the point (but I agree with
Aditya for "most of the existing stuff might not be based on
'best-practice' theory/principles proposed in our TF drafts"
			- try to look for existing (pieces of)
application/ontologies which are more or less perfect illustrations of
the "problem"
			that the point try to solve and for which we
need a relative small investment for the WG members to "upgrade" it.
			- In the case we don't succeed in the first two
points, try to evaluate the necessary work to developp something by by
ourselves and try to find volunteers (i could be one of this).


Anyway,i think that more than code it's a matter of Ontologies don't you
think ? or if you prefer, except for a few case like dealing with
enormous onotologies and perhaps resolving URI/URL , it's not really a
matter of software (architecture) engineering.

Note : I'm actually working for two projects : a pure KM project an a
project relative to virtual organisations and firms. In both 
we are going to use SW technologies (but i don't know if our protoypes
will be SW applications). I hope and i would like to work in way that
their outputs will be good examples of good/best practices


Thank you very much

Best regards 

marco NANNI


PS : I apologize for my bad comprehension of english during the last
telcons but i must say that it's generally difficult for me and 
it was quite impossible with an IP telephone.So I hope, i haven't missed
too much things and that i haven't too much ridiculous in my
interventions. Thanks
Received on Friday, 2 April 2004 03:19:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:30:53 UTC