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

Paul,

yes, the microformat community has gone its own way, and we are not very
successful (yet?) in getting closer to them. It is difficult to say why,
here are some of *my* feelings. It may be characteristic for *some* of
the problems we have.

- the RDF/XML issue did play a role. I do not want to repeat the issues,
we all know them. Note, however, that even a turtle-like formalism would
create problems: the microformat community is very much against
namespaces, for example, which is also used in Turtle:-( [They are also
vehemently against XML sometimes, but that is a different ballgame...]

- I think the image of the SW is that it is too complex and that is why
they ignored it. In my view, one of main reasons for the complication is
that there is no clear separation for a number of people among the
different 'layers' of the Semantic Web: RDF as a basic model, RDF
Schemas, the various levels of OWL. The impression many people have is
that one *must* develop complex ontologies, use DL reasoners, etc, etc,
to be on the Semantic Web. Somehow the fact that one can be a prefectly
decent Semantic Web citizen by using RDF only goes unnoticed. This may
be a way bigger problem than the RDF/XML issue (but, again, the survey
should tell us more about this).

You refer to simplicity below: we do have to emphasize that, at the
basics, we are *not* talking of something complicated here!

Note also that things are changing. The GRDDL work may have a major
impact on this!

About your question on what is the Semantic Web: of course, it is a bit
like that elephant in the tale. Extending on the FAQ[1] I would say:
"The Semantic Web is an extension of the current Web better enabling
computers and people to work in cooperation." This is very general, but
quite true...

I.


[1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/SW-FAQ#What1



Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
> Microformats [1] - "designed for humans first and machines second". 
> 
> I wonder where they got the idea for the above. Perhaps they wish to
> purposely differentiate themselves from the SW knowing that it isn't
> understood, let alone adopted. 
> 
> More quotes from the Microformats people:
> 
> "highly correlated with semantic XHTML, AKA the real world semantics, AKA
> lowercase semantic web, AKA lossless XHTML" and 
> 
> "a set of simple open data format standards that many are actively
> developing and implementing for more/better structured blogging and web
> microcontent publishing in"
> 
> [...]
> 
> This is a standard/method(?) that is explained very well in my opinion and
> we should learn from its success. I hear from a reliable source that there
> are over 100 million implementations of hCard. Real users include LinkedIn! 
> 
> Microformats was setup as a result of the SW moving too slowly (or not at
> all in some people's opinions). Microformats is hugely successful because
> there are real benefits to realise immediately. 
> 
> Personally I'm an evangelist for the SW, but we need a brand new approach,
> or the SW will do more of the same and end up walking on ice while others
> come up with short term solutions to real problems that are being faced
> today (not tomorrow).
> 
> So, can someone tell me in simple language, what they think the Semantic Web
> is? We really need to start with the basics. To me and Segala, it's adding
> metadata about a resource to enable more trust on the Web. 
> 
> Clearly my wording is limiting, but I'm hoping it will stimulate others to
> come up with more user friendly explanations. I purposely use the term
> Metadata because everyone *I* talk to understand it and believe it is
> useful. Furthermore, I purposely mention 'trust' because it's an example of
> an issue the Web/people face today. 
> 
> We're s_t_i_l_l getting bogged down by techie stuff which simply won't
> interest my particular group of companies/people - the digital industry in
> the UK and soon, the usability professionals in Ireland. That is, people who
> design and build Web sites and people who are learning how to design and
> build Web sites. And soon, people who help other people to make Web sites
> more user friendly and accessible to more people on more devices. Ok, so I
> can't influence that many people, but at least my audience is a good cross
> section of potential customers.
> 
> I've heard a number of people reference their interest/work in 'social Web
> sites'. Is anyone on the list talking to the social Web site
> owners/managers?
> 
> I hope my note doesn't come across as negative, I'm looking to play devil's
> advocate with the techies (including my own staff) :-)
> 
> [1] http://microformats.org/about/
> 
> Kind regards,
> Paul 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Kingsley Idehen
> Sent: 04 December 2006 17:19
> To: public-sweo-ig@w3.org
> Cc: W3C SWEO IG
> Subject: Re: On the messaging issues (was also the RDF/XML discussion on the
> call)
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> 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..
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
>>Lee
>>
>>  
> 
> 
> 

-- 

Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
URL: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
PGP Key: http://www.cwi.nl/%7Eivan/AboutMe/pgpkey.html
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf