W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2005

RE: Interview of TBL - The Questions/ Thank you - update and why not..Reflect and your oppinion will be published in SIGSEMIS Bulletin

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 21:22:20 +0200
Message-Id: <200510241922.j9OJMPbp003041@vmx100.multikabel.net>
To: "'Miltiadis Lytras'" <mdl@eltrun.gr>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3c.org>, <semanticweb@yahoogroups.com>
Hi Miltiadis,

 

Thank you for you nice e-mail.

 

In front of the troups I want to apologize for my leading question. I have
misunderstood you.

 

If it's not too late now, please add my name and question again.

 

Kind regards,

Hans

 

_______________________ 

Hans Teijgeler

ISO 15926 specialist

www.InfowebML.ws

hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl

phone +31-72-509 2005      

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hans Teijgeler [mailto:hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl] 
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 12:39 PM
To: 'Miltiadis Lytras'; 'semantic-web@w3c.org';
'semanticweb@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: Interview of TBL - The Questions/ Thank you - update and why
not..Reflect and your oppinion will be published in SIGSEMIS Bulletin

 

Hi Miltiadis,

 

Clever action, but is it ethical? 

 

I was under the impression that the interview had already been arranged, and
that you needed some more questions.

 

Please leave my name and question out.

 

Regards,

Hans

 

-----Original Message-----

From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Miltiadis Lytras

Sent: Friday, October 21, 2005 12:03 PM

To: Miltiadis Lytras; semantic-web@w3c.org; semanticweb@yahoogroups.com

Subject: Interview of TBL - The Questions/ Thank you - update and why
not..Reflect and your oppinion will be published in SIGSEMIS Bulletin

 

 

Dear all

I would like to thank all of you for your great support in helping me
putting together some nice interview questions fro Sir TBL. I have fwd our
SIGSEMIS interview request to Janet@W3C and we are waiting for the
reflection of Sir TBL.

 

In the next SIGSEMIS Bulletin, that will be published in the next 10 days I
will provide a detailed list of contributors (if you contributed and dont
like to make visible your name to this report just let me know). 

 

I would be happy to receive reflections and answers to the questions that I
am copying below. If anybody of you is interested can send me a world file
with some questions anwered because YOUR oppinion is also CRITICAL.This
participation on the bebate will be hosted in the SIGSEMIS bulletin, and of
course any one of you can prepare a short position document on any aspect of
scepticism that is diffused in all questions. We will provide a special
column on the Theme: "DEBATING on SW key issues".

 

For this reason i am copying here the two sets of questions (the one
developed by you and the other by me). In case of acceptnace we will
integrate the two sets in a meaningful way.

 

Thank you for your continuous support in AIS SIGSEMIS
(http://www.sigsemis.org)

 

Miltiadis

 

YOUR QUESTIONS: 

 

 

1.             William Woods wrote "Over time, many people have responded to
the need for increased rigor in knowledge representation by turning to FOL
as a semantic criterion. This distresses me, since it is already clear that
FOL is insufficient to deal with many semantic problems,....".  Lotfi Zadeh
has similarly talked about the limitations of crisp logic. And Tom Gruber
and Amit Sheth have been talking about "informal, semi-formal, formal
ontologies", and "implicit, formal and powerful semantics," (e.g., a paper
in IJSWIS 1(1) titled "Semantics for the SW: the implicit, the formal and
the powerful").  Challenges have been seen not only when modeling NLP
problems but also when modeling Life Sciences.  However it seems, you are
very bullish on DL and want to build at least initial SW on a DL based
infrastructure. Is that so? If yes, why? If not, how do you anticipate that
KR issues might progress?

 

2.             There is a long standing vision that has  focused on named
relationships (e.g, Venevar Bush: "The process of tying two items together
is the important thing.", William Woods: "What's in a link", or Amit Sheth"
"Relationships at the heart of semantics").   DL provides reasoning based on
sumbsmptive reasoning, but some see that to be highly limited in value and
impact as it could not help much with exploiting named relationships, such
as those in mining/discovery application that involve computing paths and
"connecting the dots".  Could you please share your views on computing with
a focus on relationships and contexts?

 

3.             What he thinks of Web 2.0. (www.web2con.com) - (The browser
Flock, the email Zimbra, Ajax, etc)? 

 

4.             Has the Semantic Web lost an enormous opportunity of being
part of the so-called Web 2.0 technologies?

 

5.             I would like to hear Sir Tim Berners-Lee comment on is the
layered architecture/model of the Semantic Web 5 years after its
introduction by him at the XML 2000 conference. Does the model/architecture
change given the Current technologies, and how? 

 

6.             The WWW has been comparatively much more successful than
Artificial Intelligence.  I see AI researchers are becoming very active in
the Semantic Web.  Does that mean the Semantic Web will not be a success
(compared to the standards of the WWW)?  Or, to put a positive spin on it,
can the Semantic Web finally make AI a success?

 

7.             In Sir Berners-Lee's opinion, when will commercial tools help
the development of semantic web-based implementation?  I.e., when will tools
like DreamWeaver or FileMaker Pro support semantic web capabilities? 

 

8.             Over what time period do you expect the Semantic Web to enter
mainstream technology and become as widely used as the existing web?

 

9.             To what extent will intelligent agents play a role in
harnessing the Semantic Web and how would you define an agent within this
context?

 

10.          What is the web after the Semantic Web? 

 

11.          It seems to be generally agreed that getting knowledge into
machines in the Form of ontologies is a good thing.  On the other hand, one
prominent person in this field recently presented a slide showing a
disconnect between ontologies and ROI. (Return on Investment).Can you [Tim]
please point out some areas where ontologies have provided ROI, or are
expected to do so? Would validating that instance data from several sources
conforms to a schema specified in OWL perhaps be one such area?

 

12.          The W3C is starting a Working Group on rule languages for the
Semantic Web. What kinds of "rule languages" seem necessary on the SW and
why? Are you considering reactive rules or trigger-like rules, i.e. of the
kind if event then action, or deduction rules, i.e. rules of the kind if
data then new-data? Are policies, e.g. for web service negotiations, a "rule
issue" or an issue on its own for the W3C? What is new on the SW as far as
rule languages are concerned? Will the W3C rule WG develop new rule
languages? new rule processors? Is monotonic vs. non-monotonic negation a SW
issue? An issue for rule languages on the SW?

 

13.          What are the key challenges for next generation Web search? How
will multimedia search on the Web be addressed in the future? 

 

14.          Basically Albert-Loszlo Barabasi in Notre Dame Uni argued that
WWW follows scale-free network model, which means that Zipf's law applies.
My question is would Semantic Web follow the same law?

 

15.          A question I would like to see answered is related to TRUST - a
lot has been done in terms of developing the SW infrastructure, better
tools, languages and techniques but trust seems to be a bottleneck. Could
you ask him to elaborate on this topic - present (federations, Verisign and
the like, is it enough? ) and Future (do we need new technology? will we
ever get there?)

 

16.          I think it's definitely worth touching on Tim's view of the
role of the W3C. Is early central standardization relevant to web-centric
technologies? One can certainly argue (and I do) that HTML and HTTP
succeeded precisely because most of their evolution was conducted in  a
distributed ad-hoc manner. Beyond Tim's original seed, the W3C contributed
primarily after the fact, and its formal definitions are  still quite far
removed from the realities of web distribution and applications. When the
W3C has tried to blaze genuinely new ground, such as with XSchema and SOAP,
developers and users tend to prefer simpler ad-hoc solutions. SOAP is being
largely ignored in favour of  plain HTTP and XML; will the semantic web be
built with W3C  standards, or with ad-hoc solutions emerging from
user/developer communities?

 

17.          "Massively Multiplayer Online Games are among the richest
online environments wrt to interactivity and communication between users,
how do you think the relationship between the future web and such games will
be?"

 

18.          What bothers me is that the assistance to newcomers in RDF/OWL
is poorly organized, or rather not organized at all. Yes, we have our forum,
but when I ask for solutions to problems the answers usually do not come
from anyone of, say, the top-50 experts. There are a few occasional
exceptions (Hendler, Manola, Hayes, Horrocks, Ayers, DeRoo) but that is
about it (I may have forgotten one or two). Sometime, somewhere I have read
a statement on the W3C site about the need to help implementers with their
implementation (can't find it back), but in this case it may be a bit better
organized. If SW really is required to take off, we better assist the one
million-or-so new implementers. Not to be mistaken: I don't want to be a
spoiled kid, because what has been accomplished so far is impressive, and
free to use. I am grateful for that. My suggestion is to get this organized
so that when someone really needs help, he/she gets it from an authoritive
person (I'd rather have no response that a faulty one!). Perhaps they can
render their services according a roster or so. I have "lived" for years on
the forum for XML Schema, and found that one person (Henry Thompson) seemed
to feel responsible for the provision of solutions in case nobody reacted..

 

19.          Why W3C is promoting technology which is 30 years behind the
leading edge from a simplicity point of view and "square wheel"
unreasonable.

 

20.          How come we're not getting there faster?" 

 

21.          What's his opinion on the Two Tower / One Tower-Rules quarrel
going on? 2. Does he feel like the SemWeb is going in the direction he
envisaged? 

 

22.          How did his vision change over time?

 

23.          "We know that you believe that the semantic web vision will
extend to machine-to-machine services, to enable automatic discovery,
composition, invocation, and monitoring of families of web services to
support end-user requests.  What do you see as the sequence of major
innovations and standardization activities that will bring this vision into
reality, and how long do you think it will take?"

 

24.          Do you think that dimensions such as (version of resources,
country or region of resources, level of trust of resources) which are used
in (Learning metadata) will be key elements in the semantic web? Do you
think that researches in learning communities are complementary to the SW
road map, and resources will finally be like Learning objects? Do you think
that the semantic web is moving to a big Geographic Information System in
which boundaries will appears again?

 

25.          I would like to ask Sir. Timothy Berners Lee about his opinion
on extending modelling of Semantic Web by ordering by relevance, preference,
more or less semantically linked resources. This feature is present in
Information Retrieval, search engines and also in multicriterial decision
(just to mention a few). In his first vision of Semantic Web in the
Scientific American paper it is present, but I am missing this in modelling
standards recommended and/or developed by W3C.

 

26.          I'd be curious to know what he is doing at the moment
(management? research? public relationship?) or/and what sort of issue he is
in the process of tackling. What he regards as the current and short terms
challenges in his capacity as a W3C chairman. So, that is a question
centered on his activity. Now, more specifically and less about him, maybe,
I would be curious to know whether he has any insight on current and short
term researchable issues in the context of the semantic web. 

 

 

27.          Some Questions that are rarely asked of the W3C technical
community:28.             Why is the Internet still so English language
dependent and centric? One of the greatest advantages of W3C/semantic web
technology is to provide the detailed context to make multiple language
platforms translations more accurate. For example; the technology exists
today to apply English queries to Chinese data domains; and the reverse. 

 

29.          Where is the future technical and market leadership to drive
this multi language environment? Given the rapid growth of non-native
English users and sources; particularly in Chinese, will the Internet split
into language centric factions.   For example; Chinese and English users now
interact largely within only their own separate language data domains.

 

30.          Do defacto standards like Google; with the inherent limitations
in content and context understanding, drive the Internet into separate
language factions?

 

31.          Given the lack of Google and W3C focus on development of a
multi-language architecture; does this mean that we are all doomed to live
within our own single language domains.

 

32.          What do you think of the capabilities, and the future, of the
MKR language?

 

*******************************************

AND my SIGSEMIS point of view:

*******************************************

 

1.             Miltiadis: Dear Sir, I am delighted that you agreed to this
interview. In a recent interview with Thomas Davenport he told me something
quite interesting. "The only way we can make our field more useful is to
start doing-and rewarding work that can be read and applied by
businesspeople". How happy you are with the Business Impact of the SW till
now?

 

2.             Miltiadis: You are leading W3C. What you regard as the
current and short terms challenges in your capacity as a W3C Director.

 

3.             Miltiadis: In AIS SIG on Semantic Web and Information Systems
we do believe in multidisciplinary contributions. How do you see the
synergies of the SW with various scientific fields? Do you feel that a lot
has to be done in the references of SW to established disciplines?

 

 

4.             Miltiadis: In the last couple years we try to boost awareness
for SW in various communities. A common finding is while people are really
thirsty to know more about SW they finally give it up since they consider SW
as a solid technological issue. Do you think we are missing something in the
SW cake?

 

5.             Miltiadis: Lately many people reveal the need to promote more
human centric characteristics to the SW. For example Ambjorn Naeve from the
Royal Institute of Technology in Sweden emphasizes on the need to apply a
Context Modelling layer to SW pyramid, since people's needs relate to real
world contexts- he provided the term Human Semantic Web to this. Have you
update your SW definition since its first introduction to the Scientific
America Article? 

 

6.             Miltiadis: The evolution of your web is really amazing.
Currently some people discuss for Web 2.0 or put more critical milestones
like the one of Ambient Web. If we look behind the interesting name-making
for triggering people what are the key ingredients of SW in real world
terms?

 

 

7.             Miltiadis: In our interview with Eric Miller, your W3C
Semantic Web Activity Leader, a lot of emphasis was based on the priority
for Collaborative life. What is your vision for the collaboration in the
context of the SW?

 

8.             Miltiadis: Several times I am contacting people from research
institutes worldwide. A general conclusion is that they all share a very
optimistic vision for the role of new technologies but they face many
problems. What are the major problems that you see in the promotion of the
Digital World? 

 

9.             Miltiadis: Our colleagues in SIGSEMIS from all over the world
provide the next five questions. In your opinion when will commercial tools
help the development of semantic web-based implementation?  I.e., when will
tools like DreamWeaver or FileMaker Pro support semantic web capabilities?

 

 

10.          Miltiadis: A lot of research is relating to Semantic Social
Networking or Semantic Social Intelligence.  Do you anticipate Social
Intelligence as a key part of your vision for the SW? 

 

11.          Miltiadis: If we judge from a content perspective the current
web then many "deficits" will be evident. What about multimedia content
management or content from virtual collaboration suites in SW era??

 

12.          Miltiadis: What would you say to companies who after years of
handwork have finally gotten their systems integrated, and are reluctant to
invest any further in integration technology even if it is better?

 

 

13.          Miltiadis: I am aware that you will have in Babson College,
where Tom Davenport is leading the Research, a talk on SW. How do you see
the collaboration of CS and IS people towards the creation and promotion of
fresh ideas on the role of the SW to our society?

 

 

14.          Miltiadis: Recently I interviewed Prof. Amit Sheth, from LSDIS
of the University of Georgia, and CTO of Semagix. He is enthusiastic for the
role of Semantics. With the emergence of mobile and Wireless networks how
important you think is the research on semantics of less traditional
contexts. E.g. the Semantics of M-business? 

 

15.          Miltiadis: We have many inquiries to ask you for the potential
application of SW to specific industries. E.g. defence, social security,
government etc. Which sectors do you anticipate as more mature to harvest
the SW benefits? 

 

 

16.          Miltiadis: If we look at the world map, then I feel that we (as
computer science/information systems people) must be sad for the gap between
developed world and the countries that fall behind. At the other extreme of
course technologies provide a new opportunity for self-sustained
development. What is your vision for a social sensitive SW - or how leading
edge approaches like SW could promote critical social objectives?

 

 

17.          Miltiadis: Semantic Web and university curricula. How do you
see the integration of Semantic Web within Computer Science and Information
Systems academic programs ?And further more how do you judge the training
opportunities for people in SW technologies? Is there a gap there?

 

 

18.          Miltiadis: Many people worldwide perceive that Google will be
the first industry player that will commercialise SW technologies? Is this
due to the culture of Google to invest in the knowledge of people or a
matter that SW requires economies of Scale?

 

 

 

19.          Miltiadis: In SIGSEMIS we are working on the development of
SWISE (SW enabled Information Systems) Research and Competence Centre - a
multidisciplinary distributed centre with open access and participants from
various disciplines.  How do you see informal groups and communities of
practice worldwide to contribute to your vision for the SW?

 

 

 

20.          Miltiadis: Any thoughts you would care to share on the
formation of the Special Interest Group on Semantic Web and Information
Systems on AIS?

 

 

 

-------------

 

So SIR TBL accept our kind ivitation:)

 

Janet thank you for all

Kindest Regards

 

Miltiadis

 
Received on Monday, 24 October 2005 19:22:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:40:56 UTC