RE: [SE] Software Engineering Task Force Telecon 18-01-05 Summary

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