Re: On the messaging issues (was also the RDF/XML discussion on the call)

Hi Kingsley,

Kingsley wrote on 12/04/2006 12:19:09 PM:

> 
> Lee Feigenbaum wrote:
> > Kingsley Idehen wrote on 12/04/2006 09:46:59 AM:
> >
> > 
> >> Ivan/Lee: Is there an incongruence between the items I am listing 
above 
> >> and the RDF/XML matter resolution as you see it?
> >> 
> >
> > Hi Kingsley,
> >
> > I don't have a strong feeling on the layer cake. I've never used it 
when 
> > teaching or pitching SW to someone outside the community (at least not 

> > until the late stages of the game) and don't think that it (the visual 

> > picture itself) is a major sales material of SW technologies. 
> >
> > I also don't think that dispeling RDF/XML myths need be a cornerstone 
of 
> > SWEO messaging. I've rarely personally had someone express 
reservations to 
> > me about SW technologies because of RDF/XML, and while I understand 
that 
> > in the past confusion between the interchange syntax and the data 
model 
> > turned people off from the field, I do not (personally) see it as a 
major 
> > inhibitor currently. But I also think that my personal experience is 
> > largely worthless here: I think that we should wait and see what our 
> > surveys tell us about the market's view of SW technologies, and craft 
our 
> > messaging accordingly.
> > 
> 
> Lee,
> 
> Okay, cornerstone is a little heavy :-) 
> 
> The Serialization Formats and Data Model disambiguation issue should be 
> an essential part of the SWEO outreach messaging effort?

I don't agree with this; unless the surveys indicate otherwise, I think 
our outreach messaging (i.e., our messaging to CTOs, CIOs, corporate 
developers, Web developers, Web 2.0 leaders, etc.) about the Semantic Web 
need not even mention the disambiguation issue.
 
> Focal point being, that existing and future collateral should be 
> cognizant of the tendency to inadvertently skew the RDF Data Model with 
> an over emphasis on RDF/XML. In short, more N3/Turtle examples should 
> accompany RDF/XML examples when assembling, or editing existing, 
> introductory presentation material about the RDF Data Model etc..

*This* I do agree with. It is important for the SW community itself to be 
aware that there have been problems in the past with ambiguity between the 
data model and the RDF/XML serializaiton. Once aware, collateral produced 
can, as you say, make sure to produce examples that do not conflate 
RDF/XML syntax with the RDF data model (by, e.g., using Turtle or 
N-triples in examples). 

Whether or not an edited layer cake diagram is important to reminding the 
SW community to be careful of conflating serialization and data model in 
their own outreach efforts is unclear to me...
 
> I really want to be crystal clear about the point I am trying to make 
> about the messaging and the use of the Layer Cake to guide the 
> construction of said messaging.

And I likewise would like to be clear: I think that it is important that 
messaging from the SW community to potential SW technology consumers not 
confuse serialization and data model. I do not think (modulo the survey 
results) that it is important that the messaging SWEO produce actively try 
to dispel such confusion. 
 
Lee

Received on Tuesday, 5 December 2006 00:41:23 UTC