Re: Linguistic Semantic Web gTLDs & meetings in Geneva

Dear Benjamin
> On 04.05.2006 21:26:51, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
>>A first annoucement concerning the Semantic Web gTLDs proposal
>>( )
>>was posted on the semantic-web  list at W3C in October 2005.
>>The comments that I received either on the list or privately
>>encouraged to continue to work on this idea.
> Sorry, but I don't think there was a single supportive 
> response to your proposal, 
> at least not on semantic-web. 
> You may want to check again the docs that the sw community 
> pointed you at back then.

Lets go back to this past exchange on the SW list at W3C.
I was expecting flames from many people that had been
irritated by ICANN and
ICANN behavior concerning the unecessary
multiplication of gTLDs.
There were some hasty remarks without rationale,
that show the proposal was not read.
I am not with ICANN...neither I work for ICANN...
I hope those people can convey their anti-ICANN
feelings to the W3C representative who is, at last,
present in the WSIS debates.
I share those concerns !!!

The first two docs were given by
Danny Ayers as the first answer on the list.

New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful - Tim Berners-Lee

Why Using TLDs for Filtering is Ineffective, Harmful, and Unnecessary
- Ian Jacobs

I consider this was a quick answer that included
  pointers that were usefull to
the debate and but the SWgTLD proposal
has not been considered in detail.

First, the paper written in 2000 by Ian jacobs concerns the
".xxx" domain and it is irrelevant.
Second, I agree with what Tim Berners-Lee wrote in 2004, within
the ICANN context. The  SWgTLD proposal is quite distinct and
conforted me to pursue this proposal, as I answered
on the W3C list.

Some people who took time to read the proposal and obviously
understood the rationale suggested
instead a whitelist or an organization, "The Semantic Web Site
Certification Authority".
I answered that this would turn to be more complicated
to setup the SWgTLDs and would not benefit from the
unique impetus of the WSIS.
There was one constructive connection with the issue
of interoperabilty and this was the third document
pointed to me :
Indeed, one aspect of the SWgTLDs proposal is
about interoperability.
May be, it could be sufficient that instead of
one ontology that might be enforced
in a specific  SWgTLD, we could envision a set of ontologies
that are interoperable ( this interoperable set
constitutes in fact an ontology ).

Concerning one type of anwser that betrayed a
funny laissez-faire :

 > forget tlds, uri prefixes, protocols and file suffixes. start 
publishing rdf, people will find it. don't worry too much. life is good.
Yes, life is good:
indeed : industrial polution, weather gone mad, junk food
mass epidemia on the run, terrorims, wars ...
a Soylent Green fate...( watch this old movie... )
please add corruption of (meta)data, virus in the cyberspace...

Well, concerning SW gTLDs, it is like an environmentalist project,
making a new cyberenvironment, clean air,
they are like Natural Parks of (meta)data.

The EPA works and in the UN and elsewhere,
and there is worldwide effort
to save the environment.
In any ecosystem there is an environment, and
the cyberspace is no exception.
It is about time to make this realization.

It seemed to me that at this point, some SW people
at last, begun to understand the true nature of
the SWgTLDs under the "environmental"
or "green" aspect.
I got some private positive mails then, and,
after some initial flak,
this gave me encouragements to pursue this

The Linguistic SWgTLDs present a fantastic
oppurtunity for SWgTLDs.

It is time to become mature, the time of
the world wild web is gone...
we need to build a clean cyber-environement,
based on trust.

ICANN has not pursued the goal of building trust,
but of making money, by selling as many domain names
as possible.

Our goal is to build trust.

Is life so good ?
The W3C is on the defensive. IE7 is not going
to abide by W3C standards, the SW is being derided
as the "pedantic web", progress is slow...
the SW community must not become a prisonner of it own
delusion that the SW would come all by itself
all over the world.
Most people in governments and in the UN,
don't even know what the SW is.
Be realistic.

How the SW would emerge if it emerges at all ?

Since the W3C is now engaged in the WSIS process,
I hope that the W3C must start to consider governance
  options concerning the SW, its main agenda.
( the browser war is not quoted much ).
Rejecting any governance is not an option.
Bridging the digital divide at all OSI levels
requires good governance.

The SWgTLDs is one SW governance proposal,
that is just a draft,
and it needs refinenments for sure,  lets people propose
other governance schemes, and lets us discuss
constructively, and
try to advance without preconceived ideas.

Best regards


> Regards,
> Benjamin
> --
> Benjamin Nowack
> Kruppstr. 100
> 45145 Essen, Germany
>>In the last pages of the book "A Semantic Web Primer" (p 225) it is 
>>written  : How one should deal with a multitude of ontologies ?. This 
>>problem ( known the ontology mapping problem ) is perhaps the hardest 
>>problem to be solved. ../.. Possibly the first success stories will not 
>>emerge from the open heterogeneous eovironment of the WWW but rather in 
>>intranets of large organizations. In such environments, central control 
>>may impose the use of standards and technologies, and possibly the first 
>>real success will emerge.
>>The SWgTLDs might be therefore the first real success for SW.
>>In the mean time, a specific aplplication of SWgTLDs
>>has been proposed
>>the *Linguistic SWgTLDs - LSWgTLDs*
>>that might provide an additional impetus for the SW.
>>Your comments are most welcome.
>>Concerning Machine Translation,
>>it is proposed to improve machine translation while making
>>use of two or more versions in different languages
>>of the same document.
>>Of course Medata and identification of documents
>>are a necessity to identify that a document is the
>>version in another language of a the same document.
>>Your kind attention is brought on the following events in Geneva
>>of a major political importance :
>>ITU and UNESCO Global Symposium  on Promoting the
>>Multilingual Internet (  Geneva, 9-11 May 2006  )
>>Consultation on WSIS Action Line C8 : Cultural Diversity and Identity,
>>Linguistic Diversity and Local Content
>>at Palais des Nations, Room XX, 10h00 - 18h00.
>>( 12 May 2006, Geneva, Switzerland  )
>>and for more general discussions.
>>New round of consultations on the convening of the IGF
>>( 19 May 2006, Geneva )
>>We have been very pleased to notice that for the first time,
>>the W3C ( Daniel Dardailler ) is involved in the
>>negotiations of the WSIS process.
>>Concerning the IGF, please consult
>>the site of the FreeW3 coalition
>>has been formed, because there was a need
>>to formulate concrete proposals within
>>Civil Society and to go beyond
>>the incomplete analysis
>>of the WGIG.
>>The name FreeW3 has not been choosen to
>>imply that the W3C is not free !,
>>it was simply that other (.org)
>>domain names such
>>were not available.
>>Among the proposal
>>SWgTLDs are listed.
>>Of course, the FreeW3 coalition support
>>the W3C effort toward the SW in general see
>>Concerning the ways to attend those meetings, please
>>contact "Viola Krebs" <>
>>from REDILI in Geneva that might give you
>>more informations.
>>While taking a cautious approach,
>>linguistic SWgTLDs might constitute a breaktrough
>>toward a practical multilinguism
>>( except for poetry ) on the web.
>>Best regards
>>Francis Muguet
>>Version francaise établie à partir de Babelfish
>>et corrigée manuellement
>>Chers linguistes  et chercheurs
>>des sciences de l'information  et/ou défenseurs distingués du 
>>Une premiere annonce de la proposition des Sémantique gTLDs 
>>( a été postée sur la liste semantique-web du
>>W3C en octobre 2005.
>>Les commentaires que j'ai reçu sur la liste ou en privé m'ont encouragé 
>>à continuer à travailler sur cette idée.
>>Dans les dernières pages du livre "une introduction à toile sémantique 
>>sémantique de Web" (p 225) on a écrit : Comment devrait-on traiter une 
>>multitude d'ontologies ?. Ce problème (connu sous le
>>nom du problème de la "carte ontologique") est peut-être le problème le 
>>plus dur à être résolu.. probablement les premièrs récits de succès 
>>n'émergeront pas de l'eovironment hétérogène ouvert du WWW mais plutôt 
>>dans les intranets de grands organismes. Dans de tels environnements, un
>>control central peut imposer l'utilisation des normes et des 
>>technologies, et probablement le premier vrai succès y émergera.
>>Les SWgTLDs pourraient donc constituer un premier vrai succès du SW.
>>Entre-temps, un application spécifique des SWgTLDs a été proposée
>>*SWgTLDs linguistique - le LSWgTLDs *
>>qui pourrait fournir une impulsion additionnelle pour le SW.
>>Vos commentaires sont les bienvenues.
>>Pour ce qui concerne la traduction automatique, on
>>propose d'améliorer la traduction automatique tout en se servant de deux 
>>versions ou plus dans différentes langues du même document. 
>>Naturellement, les métadonnées  et les identification des documents sont 
>>une nécessité à certifier qu'un document est la version en une autre 
>>langue du même document.
>>Votre aimable attention est portée sur les événements suivants à Genève 
>>d'importance politique majeure :
>> Colloque global d'ITU et 
>>d'UNESCO sur favoriser l'Internet multilingue (Genève, 9-11 mai 2006) 
>>Consultation sur la ligne d'action C8 du SMSI  : Diversité et identité 
>>culturelle, diversité linguistique  au Palais des Nations , pièce XX, 
>>10h00 - 18h00. (12 mai 2006, Genève, Suisse)
>>et pour des discussions plus générales. 
>>Nouveau rond des consultations sur s'assembler de l'IGF (19 mai 2006, 
>>Nous avons été très heureux de noter que pour la première fois, le W3C 
>>(Daniel Dardailler) est impliqué dans les négociations du processus de 
>>Pour ce qui concerne l'IGF, consultez svp le site FreeW3 de la coalition 
>> qui a été formée,
>>parce qu'il y avait un besoin de formuler des propositions concrètes 
>>chez la société civile et d'aller au delà de l'analyse inachevée du WGIG.
>>La proposition des SWgTLDs est citée.
>>Naturellement, La coalition FreeW3 appuie l'effort de W3C vers le SW en 
>>Pour ce qui concerne les manières d'assister à ces réunions, entrez en 
>>contact avec svp Viola Krebs" de REDILI à Genève qui pourrait vous 
>>fournir plus d'informations.
>>Tout en adoptant une approche prudente, SWgTLDs linguistique pourrait 
>>constituer un breaktrough vers un multilinguisme pratique (excepté la 
>>poésie) sur l'enchaînement.
>>Bien cordialement
>>Francis Muguet
>>Francis F. MUGUET  Ph.D
>>World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)
>>UNMSP project :
>>World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
>>Civil Society Working Groups
>>Scientific Information :  chair
>>Patents & Copyrights   : co-chair
>>Financing Mechanismns  : web
>>Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
>>Knowledge Networks and Information Society
>>32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
>>Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82
>>MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
>>Associate Publisher


Francis F. MUGUET  Ph.D
World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)

UNMSP project :

World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
Civil Society Working Groups
Scientific Information :  chair
Patents & Copyrights   : co-chair
Financing Mechanismns  : web

Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
Knowledge Networks and Information Society
32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82

MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
Associate Publisher


Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 13:19:06 UTC