Re: a concern on SW technologies: document content

Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
> -----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.
>   
Paul,

Yes, I certainly believe SWEO should provide a "conduit of coherence" 
between Web 2.0 and the Semantic Web.

As I have stated many times, without Web 2.0 the vision of the Semantic 
Web is actually much harder to articulate in practical anecdotal form :-)

Ideally, I would solicit a dump of Top X concerns from Web 2.0 community 
and then use said dump of concerns to produce a Wiki document. The 
ultimate goal being the crystallization the aforementioned "conduit of 
coherence".

Kingsley
> [...]
>
> Kind regards,
> Paul 
>
>
>   


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com

Received on Saturday, 9 December 2006 17:02:30 UTC