RE: [ALL, WRLD] "World" TF description (informal)

This looks good for the most part. One question of scope: why does the
first note explain the importance of RDF and OWL but then only give any
information about RDF? Is the idea that we start with RDF and then point
them to the next note if they want more?
 
Mike
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-swbp-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jim Hendler
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 12:12 PM
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org
Subject: [ALL, WRLD] "World" TF description (informal)
 
From minutes of telecon:
 
>ACTION: Guus to propose a format for TF description
>(the following depend on the above)
>  ACTION: JimH write description of WorldView TF
 
although I'll wait for Guus before I send a "formal" description,  I
have a cancelled meeting and decided to send this today while I have the
time -- feedback is, of course welcome as are TF volunteers.
 
 
WORLD VIEW TASK FORCE
Mail Descriptor:  [WRLD]
 
Members:
  See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2004JanMar/0100.html
 
Goal:
 This Task Force will develop two notes.
 
 The first note will be aimed at Web Developers not yet using RDF and
OWL.  It's goal is to explain the importance thereof, to show how RDF
integrates with the HTML, XHTML, XML, SOAP, WSDL (etc) world and to
explain how RDF can be used in systems development along with other
specifications (not to define an embedding, but rather to explain when
and how it can be used with and without embedding).    This document is
not intended to be a "semantic web architecture" document, nor to be a
vision document (like [1]) mor a "business case" document like [2] --
rather, the intended audience is Web application developers and not the
general public.
 
 The second note will be aimed at those already interested in using
Semantic Web technology, but confused about how to get started or to
move forward with development -- this note is the one we have jokingly
referred to as the "clean up our mess" document.  Essentially, if we
were to redesign the SW from scratch, we would probably not come up with
a world with RDF, RDF Schema, OWL Lite, OWL DL, and OWL Full filling
various, and sometimes seemingly competing, niches.  However, these are
the recommendations we have, and it is important to explain how they fit
together, and to debunk the myth that somehow the languages form an
"ordering" from least to most complex -- rather, we need to explain what
each does, and how they fit together.  For example, RDF developers will
need to know how their data may eventually be used (and even validated
in some sense) by OWL, and OWL developers need to understand why they
are using the rdf: and rdfs: namespaces. 
 
 
 
 
[1]
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC5
88EF21
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/07/swint
 
 
 
-- 
Professor James Hendler
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler 
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies       301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.      301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742      240-277-3388 (Cell)