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

At 14:45 -0800 3/29/04, Uschold, Michael F wrote:
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



umm, not sure I understand -- when we talk about "RDF" it's like 
saying "XML" -- it can mean the specific things in the XML 
recommendation or it can mean the whole magilla - schema, xquery, 
xpath, topic maps, etc.  - I was using RDF in the more general way in 
the first note, and in the more specific way in the second.  We 
sometimes used to say "the RDF family of languages" but that sounds 
pretty silly pretty fast.  When the context is clear (as I hoped it 
was in this case), I don't see a reason to always say "RDF, RDF 
Schema, and OWL (Lite, DL, and Full)" instead of just RDF.


-----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=00048144-10D2-1C70-84A9809EC588EF21
[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)



-- 
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)