- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:59:50 -0500
- To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
----- Forwarded message from Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> ----- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:57:15 -0500 To: www-archive@w3.org Subject: danbri sw bpd wg - wishlist slides Message-ID: <20040304105715.GA28243@homer.w3.org> Resent-From: www-archive@w3.org Resent-Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 05:57:17 -0500 (EST) BPD WG wishlist Expect to hear “that sounds like a job for the BPD WG†- prioritising is important Our scope is broad - open datasets (eg. Musicbrainz, TAP, lists of names, places) important as Semantic Web scaffolding Focus on gathering stories (first person human perspective) from early adopters, from KR old timers, from newcomers…? 3 wishlist items 1. Representing thesauri on the SW using RDF/OWL 2. Vocabulary documentation: techniques and conventions for publishing useful information at namespace URIs (RDF/OWL/XHTML etc.) 3. Deployment practicalities for versioning of public, deployed, “live†RDF?OWL vocabs SW Thesauri in RDF/OWL technical + social: help digital library and metadata community (eg. Dublin Core) feel the SW effort addresses their needs 2 styles: RDF description of thesaurus data structures, versus RDF/OWL that tells you what the thesaurus told you (swad-e & other) Costs/tradeoffs of each, mapping between the two idioms 2. Vocabulary Documentation FAQ: what can/should I publish at my namespace URI? RDF? XHTML? Content negotiation? Practical impact of / versus # debate, especially with large vocabs like thesauri Case studies and story telling rather than REC-track ‘rules’, initially at least Practical of vocab versioning rebuilding a floating ship: the (Semantic) Web is in constant operation Costs/benefits of changing vocab versus publishing a successor vocabulary Mitigating impact of chosen approach: stakeholders, feedback ----- End forwarded message -----
Received on Thursday, 4 March 2004 05:59:50 UTC