- From: Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 14:50:32 -0500
- To: W3C SWEO IG <public-sweo-ig@w3.org>
I've gone over the business presentation with some colleagues and have some more general suggestions. I haven't crafted any text yet myself: I'm curious to hear whether people agree or not, though I know we're a bit crunched or time. I wasn't comfortable taking Jeff's hard work and imposing my views on it :) Here are some things we discussed: * Could we emphasize future-proofing more? It's a strategic benefit and the low risk section starts to talk about it a bit, but I think we could emphasize a bit more the constancy of change and how semantics prepares an enterprise for adapting to change. * Should we address the performance question? The type of early adopters and technology enthusiasts that will be excited by this presentation will quickly ask about performance. Should this presentation address that concern? (Perhaps via general talk of the natural overhead of semantics being addressed by modern hardware compute power and scalability? I'm not sure. * Should we emphasize more that semantics applies to existing (legacy) data? The idea of adopting RDF as a standard for virtually representing information as it comes out of existing data systems? This is to explicitly remove the perception that adopting SW technologies requires throwing away existing IT investments. * Perhaps "IT maintenance" is an area that could be included in spending categories that are positively impacted by SemWeb technologeis? * Are the occurrences of "DCP" supposed to be "DCF"? * Should "policy compliance" (of which one example is regulatory compliance) be included as a strategic fit for semantic technologies? (Is it considered covered by enterprise governance?) Lee
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2008 19:50:48 UTC