- From: Paul Walsh, Segala <paulwalsh@segala.com>
- Date: Sat, 9 Dec 2006 10:05:40 -0000
- To: "'Lee Feigenbaum'" <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>, <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
-----Original Message----- From: public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sweo-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Lee Feigenbaum > What I think we could do with these kinds of questions is place them in > a "Presumed" or "Assumed" Challenges Wiki document. I agree with this; I don't know if our survey process will uncover anymore concerns along these particular lines, but since one thing we're doing is soliciting existing concerns about SW technologies, I felt that my coworker's thoughts were valuable. [PW] The question isn't whether your colleague's concerns are valuable or not, clearly they are and much appreciated :) I'm not even saying we shouldn't address them (full stop). I'm suggesting we don't focus on techie stuff yet because if this isn't clear by now then what are the respective Semantic working groups doing to explain their existence and differentiate themselves from other technologies. This group is about marketing, not techie stuff, or at least that's what I thought - please correct me if I'm wrong. The question is what *this* group should focus on. It has no sponsorship and therefore no money to pay for anything, other than the goodwill of the current participants with W3C support. This is such an important initiative that it warrants it's own site like Microformats.org as I've said before. Wikis are great for knowledge sharing/editing but less attractive for stimulating user interest. BTW, I thought that targeting opinion leaders and soliciting industry feedback were two different things. In other words, I thought we'd ask the Web 2.0 community (amongst others) what they think and more importantly, articulate to them what the benefits of the Semantic Web are so they'll ride the wave. I thought the solicitation of feedback to see what the 'industry' thought, was going to target Web developers. These are two entirely different audiences with only a small overlap. [...] Kind regards, Paul
Received on Saturday, 9 December 2006 10:05:43 UTC