- From: Uschold, Michael F <michael.f.uschold@boeing.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 17:06:25 -0800
- To: <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
In response to my Boeing colleague's comments about interoperability with other vocabularies for image markup, I sent this comment: _____________________________________________ From: Uschold, Michael F Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 3:16 PM To: <Boeing Digital Asset Management Application Architect> Subject: RE: Semantic Image Annotation Note that there is a separate note in the MM task force, specifically addressing interoperability. Semantic Web Image Annotation Interoperability <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/MM/interop.html> . There is a separate task force concerned with vocabularies: See: http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/ for the overview. Here are two documents about vocabularies. * Configuring Apache HTTP Server for RDFS/OWL Ontologies Cookbook <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/> , Editor's Draft (latest version), Alistair Miles, editor. * Managing a Vocabulary for the Semantic Web - Best Practice <http://esw.w3.org/topic/VocabManagementNote> , Wiki draft (work suspended to work on the cookbook <http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/VM/http-examples/> ). Mike ======== This was his response: > ______________________________________________ > From: <Boeing Digital Asset Management Application Architect> > Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:17 PM > To: Uschold, Michael F > Subject: RE: Semantic Image Annotation > > Mike - > > I've taken a quick scan through all five links and > they are either too incomplete or too detailed for > me to find usable. > > By "too detailed", I refer to the fact that they > describe preferred implementation information > out of context with the problems they are trying > to solve. For example, "the cookbook" link is > the best of all of these because it is the most > complete but presumes knowledge of OWL and > a controlled vocabulary built in something akin > to XML (if not XML). I also get the sense that > "the cookbook" would only be useful for a data > migration or port to a semantic web environment > so its utility appears to be one time only. > > This leaves me scratching my head about how > to use the information without getting down to > the code level. I used to do that for a living but > now spend my time on application architecture > issues (meaning conceptual design, generating > criteria for satisfying that design and picking > components using that criteria to solve aspects > of the design). > > The closest a lot of this info comes to helping > me is sneaking up on technical architecture > standards for doing metamodel/metadata integration > between a metadata repository and search services > but there is too much physical design info and too > little logical or conceptual design info for me to figure > out how to link any possible problem to this potential > solution. > > Does this make sense? If not I'll try to invent some > examples but that is kind of tough given my lack of > detailed knowledge about semantic technology in > general. > <Boeing Digital Asset Management Application Architect> ============ I sent a further comment: _____________________________________________ From: Uschold, Michael F Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 4:42 PM To: <Boeing Digital Asset Management Application Architect> Subject: RE: Semantic Image Annotation It does make sense, at least in broad terms. I will send this along as further feedback. They will be able to tease apart more useful information than I, which should result in updated version that may be more useful to you. Part of the intended audience is application developers, of course. But you are also part of the intended audience, so they may have more work to do to satisfy the needs of folk in positions like yours. Mike === To which he responded: Mike - In regards to providing architecture info as well as developer info, in theory all developers are directed by architects, at least where medium to large system development is concerned. So, providing dev info without architect info is like writing a maintenance manual without including an technical sales literature. If people like me cannot figure out when to use a technology then we won't specify it when doing COTS acquisitions, working with current software suppliers to alter the future direction of their products or even think to design semantic technology standard support into our own products. <Boeing Digital Asset Management Application Architect>
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 01:06:53 UTC