- From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:50:40 +0100
- To: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>
- CC: Phil Tetlow <philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com>, danbri@w3.org, best-practice list <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Jim Hendler wrote: > > FWIW, I was planning to raise some objections when this went out - I can > do it now -- basically, I think we should remove the discussion of "a > collection of semantic webs" which is both naive and misleading (section > 3.4 of [1]) -- rather, if you wish to refer to something like "Semantic > intra-nets" or such I could live with that -- the point is this content > all lives in the same exact address space (the http URI space) and > separate documents within corporations or the like, may be protected by > firewalls, or by lack of linking, but since they still participate in > this same universal space (and via same protocols, standards, etc;) > saying "Semantic Webs" is as wrong as referring to separate "Webs" -- > the WWW has intranet/intraweb components which are walled-off from > others, and this was crucial to early Web development, but it is exactly > that these could eventually be linked to others that we have a > (singular) World Wide Web, and conveying the idea that somehow the Sem > Web is different is both misleading and wrong -- if someone totally > foolish wanted to create their own, unregistered URI scheme, keep their > ontologies against that scheme (and I guess copy the owl namespace into > that space or else they link via owl: concepts), and make sure nothing > every touched the rest of the Web it could be a separate Semantic Web, > but it seems like an odd and vicious idea to do so. Linking "islands" > of the Semantic Web will eventually be very important to its success, > and it is VERY important that we don't convey the idea that these > islands are somehow separate -- if we do, then much of the Sem Web > technology "degrades" back to the traditional, unlinkable, AI stuff, > which is what we are trying to avoid. > Tim BL and I had a fight with one of the EU funders who kept trying to > refer to multiple Semantic Webs, and seeing SWBP feed into this foolish > misconception would not be a good thing Jim, We decided at the Galway ftf that SWBPD will NOT publish this document. Instead it will be up for discussion in the SWIG, which I think is appropriate. Best, Guus > -Jim Hendler > AC Rep > MIND Lab > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ > > > At 8:47 +0000 11/14/05, Phil Tetlow wrote: > >> Dan, >> >> How do you suggest we go about SWIG review of the ODA note? >> >> It can be found at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/SE/ODA/ >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Philip Tetlow >> Senior Consultant (Certified Technical Architect) >> IBM Business Consulting Services >> >> Mail: IBM United Kingdom Limited, 1175 Century Way, Thorpe Park, Colton, >> Leeds, LS15 8ZB >> Current Assignment: DWP BPRP (Metadata) >> Mobile: +44 (0)7740 923328 >> Email: philip.tetlow@uk.ibm.com > > -- Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands Tel: +31 20 598 7739/7718; e-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
Received on Monday, 14 November 2005 17:51:00 UTC