- From: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 05:57:17 -0500
- To: Daniel Oberle <oberle@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>
- Cc: michael.f.uschold@boeing.com, public-swbp-wg@w3.org, Jeff.pan@manchester.ac.uk
Daniel, Mike, Ok, if you don't mind I think I would like to add some comments that perhaps you could pass opinion on. The use of the term 'Semantic Web' IMHO appears to have two purposes in the context of the SEFT 1. As a 'category' simply to group a number of technologies (RDF, OWL etc), together. This fits example (a) in Mikes original mail? 2. As a 'mechanism' for use as far across the software lifecycle as possible. This fits example (b)? So I think that both fit. Nevertheless I absolutely agree that the current wording used on the TF is poor and both Jeff Pan and myself have made a number of requests for collective assistance here. Perhaps you could produce some suitable words? Again I think this should be on the agenda for our next SE telecon. Kind regards Phil Tetlow Senior Consultant IBM Business Consulting Services Mobile. (+44) 7740 923328 Daniel Oberle <oberle@aifb.uni- karlsruhe.de> To Sent by: michael.f.uschold@boeing.com public-swbp-wg-re cc quest@w3.org michael.f.uschold@boeing.com Subject RE: [SE] Software Engineering Task 27/01/2005 05:28 Force Telecon 18-01-05 Summary Hi Mike, your suggested contents are in line with one of the comments I made earlier (pasted below from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-swbp-wg/2005Jan/0046.html). IMHO this is pretty important so we should clarify it. Best, Daniel > I was left a bit confused. What's unclear IMO is if > > a) we want to use Semantic Web technologies in SE > example: using OWL for reasoning and querying with software > components in an Application Server to improve component-based > SE (like done in [4]) -> the Semantic Web itself is of no interest here > > or > > b) we want to use/incorporate the Semantic Web in SE > example: like you describe it in the text below, we could use the > Web for runtime component sharing, not to mention the exciting > possibilities of Semantic Web Services -> the Semantic Web with > its annotated resources is of interest here > > Apart from the fact that one can do both at a time, I think the > points should be presented separately. The distinction is also unclear > in the text below what gave me a hard time following it.
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 10:53:41 UTC