Re: collateral material

Paula-Lavinia Patranjan wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>> some quick comments
>>
>> - (with all my respect to Kjetil!:-) I would put more emphasis on the
>> use cases and cases studies rather than the community projects. These
>> types of brochures are more appealing to business people than techies
>> and, for those, the use cases are more important (I believe)
>>   
> 
> It is not that the use cases and case study are not interesting pieces
> of information for business people or even researchers and developers,
> but I don't think they are really suitable for such a flyer. First of
> all, the list of use cases and case studies is quite long. If we need to
> choose, how should we do that? I mean, if we choose the use case
> provided by company A and not the one provided by company B, we might
> give a wrong (implicit) message. On the other hand, the 4 community
> projects found (a kind of) consensus in the SWEO IG, since the whole
> group voted for choosing them. Apart from this, the community projects
> show a couple of concrete usages of SW technologies and the business
> people need just to recognize the possible impact of SW technologies on
> the actual or future developments within their companies. IMHO, this
> flyer should have the message: SW is not complicated, it is useful, it
> is part of the future of Web's development, and should give some hints
> to SW technologies. The idea is to make (business) people curious and
> determine them to want to know more about SW technologies.
> 

I understand. I think what we should try to see (on Moday?) is whether
there are some higher level "trends" in the use cases so far that we can
refer to and write down. I think to applications like:

- data integration
- supplier contact management
- web site creation and management with improved search/user interface

etc. Each of these could then be backed up by specific names that are
documented.

Again: I have nothing against the community projects. But remember their
goal: find SW applications that would be convincing for non-SW
*developers* (at least mostly) that this is a useful technology...


> However, I don't want to say that my viewpoints on this issue are the
> 'right ones' ... We, the authors of the first version of the flyer
> (Norbert Eisinger, Dunja, and myself) are open to suggestions for
> improving it.
> 
>> - I am not sure which layer cake you used with your explanation; I would
>> use http://www.w3.org/2007/03/layerCake.png (ie, no separate XML and XML
>> schema thing, for example)
>>
>>   
> 
> We will change the layer cake and the corresponding short explanation of
> the involved layers, thank you for pointing us to this version!
> 
>> I presume you will be able to dial in on Monday. It would be good...
>>   
> 
> We will try to be on the call on Monday.
> 

That would be good!

Cheers

I.

> Best regards,
> Paula
> 
> 
> 
>> Ivan
>>
>> Dunja Ewinger wrote:
>>  
>>> Dear SWEOs,
>>>
>>> based on Ivan's FAQ, the information found on the Semantic Web activity
>>> page, and the SWEO activities we put together some content and developed
>>> a possible structure for the Semantic Web flyer.
>>>
>>> Please see on the private wiki
>>> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/group/wiki/Collateral_Material
>>>
>>> I think this could be a good basis for the discussion on Monday.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Dunja
>>>
>>>     
>>
>>   
> 

-- 

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