- From: Maciej Gawinecki <mgawinecki@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 09:11:52 +0200
- To: Ioachim Drugus <sw@semanticsoft.net>
- CC: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>, Maciej Gawinecki <mgawinecki@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org
Dear all, I would like to thank you for your comments. This is really impressing. I didn't suppose I would receive so much feedback. One guy (the author of "Transactional processing") cited once sth like this: "This is really not fair that we can buy great books, but we cannot buy time to read them." I wish I could buy more time. Will need more to read all that stuff. Maciej Ioachim Drugus pisze: > > >>> We cooperate with Moldova State University, Technological University >>> and Economics Academy. They already started work on adding semantic >>> technologies to their post-graduates curriculum. >> Good to know! Are any of these materials online? Even if not in >> English, it is good to be able to take a look around such things. >> > Nothing is online yet, but I will put something together, including > contact info of the teachers participating in this, and will send to > you. In Moldova, they speak three languages - Romanian (native), Russian > (practically same as native) and English (pretty good) - we can have > most of materials in English. I came to IT from Academia, where I did > reasearch and taught mathematical logics. So, I know this world pretty > good - if you plan ever to help with curricula or something else, would > be happy to help. >> Another suggestion here (and a general one, to all >> listmembers/countries) is that arranging for inter-site visits may be >> a good way to build up skills and connections that bind the Semantic >> Web community together better. A related approach is through events >> like workshops and conferences. I think in general outsourcing is >> easier when there has been some prior face-to-face contact, or >> collaboration/discussion through standards work (such as this list), >> opensource toolkits etc. > We would be happy to host such a meeting in Moldova. From this side we > can arrage involvement of > - Research organizations in Moldova, including the Academy of Sciences > (the President of AS candidated for Moldova President, and might > candidate again in 2009 - he knows about SW) > - Moscow University, Russia (I graduated, did doctoral research and > taught there for a short time) > - The members of Government (they sponsored a conference on > e-governement systems recently and we shared about advantages of > semantic features above EDI) > I am sure we can get support from the Government even for a large Forum > for ex-Soviet countries (Moldova is an active member of CIS - the > successor USSR). > Let me extend an invitation to W3C members to visit Moldova and > SemanticSoft with any other occasion they visit Europe. >>> Now, I will share two thoughts on Maciej's message, which precisely >>> articulates the problems of growth of SW. >>> >>> 1. Search engines are not alternative, but complementary to SW. >>> Really, SW is about *integration* on the global scale and *building* >>> the logical layer of the web, and SE is about *search* in the >>> *presentation layer*. SE and SW live in different spaces - they >>> cannot compete. >>> >>> 2. I will try to articulate the problem which stay in SW progress >>> towards industry and on how to overcome it. >>> >>> SW works only with *descriptions* - SW tools process only >>> descriptions. On the other side, we have the classic web, which works >>> with *resources* >> >> (I'll read that as "document-like resources"; "resource" in the strict >> SW sense simply means "thing", while in other groups it meant >> something a bit like "page") > I meant here "application resources" but I wrote "resources" for > shortness. Generally, we try to use terms in strict SW sense. We are > waiting for the release of WWWA ontology to be sure on strictness. >> Sounds like nice work. Do you see any scope for a common >> architecture/design with the recently announced Drupal RDF effort? >> They again are building RDF/SW descriptions into a system based around >> a resource/document repository, eg see >> http://groups.drupal.org/node/9010 and >> http://boston2008.drupalcon.org/session/rdf-and-semantic-web-drupal >> >> There are also some commonalities with OpenLink and Talis's work. >> Which is all good: not meant as a criticism. I think we're all >> figuring out what shape RDF/SW application software will take; at the >> moment the closests we have to interchangable software pieces for RDF >> are parsers, databases and SPARQL engines. I'm very interested to see >> whether higher level functionality also gets created to shared >> interfaces, so implementations could compete on their merits, and >> users have improved app portability between them. > > It would be great to cooperate with Drupal RDF effort. Their approach > sounds closer to another our project which is not over - "Chameleon". > This will be a CMS where you can export/import web content into RDF and > send the file to another Chameleon site which will restore it as web > content. By web content we mean everything you can see on a site, > including the interactive UI controls. Chameleon will be an "empty" > site, with an engine behind it, which > (1) Builds the web content from its RDF description > (2) Compiles the RDF description from the web content which you build > visually, through UI > You can get first impression of Chameleon if you press Try under > SemanticSite on our home page. There is no Help yet, but we tried to > make it intuitive enough so that with some guesswork, anybody could > build a site, intranet or other web-based application without technical > skills (semantical features must be ready by middle summer) > >> BTW looking at http://www.semanticsoft.net/semanticwebtools.html ... I >> read "Currently, Semantic Server comes with its own SPARQL processor >> which is also visual. The user can draw a diagram of the query - the >> tool builds the query and displays it result." ... is this your own >> SPARQL implementation, or do you build on top of an existing toolkit? > This is our own Java implementation of SPARQLversion June 15 2007. > Generally, we have our proprietary SW development framework based on > conceptual A3 approach. It does not have only the XML part of RDF/XML > presentation, which we are using from Jena. >> cheers, >> Dan > > Thank you, > Ioachim > > > >
Received on Monday, 5 May 2008 07:13:47 UTC