W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2010

Re: call to arms

From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Apr 2010 10:57:57 +0100
Message-ID: <g2ue8aa138c1004030257o2313f46bo28dca0be10685c21@mail.gmail.com>
To: paoladimaio10@googlemail.com, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Is this an exercise in who is using these technologies now?
A broader exercise would allow the fleshing out of use cases in something
like the following fashion:

   1. Identify an existing problem area in the existing system
   2. Identify candidate solutions including
   1. their strengths and weaknesses
      2. interoperability with other existing and anticipated sub-systems
   3. demonstrate the possibility of staged build out - i.e. a means by
   which costs can be controlled

Although a paper exercise I would be interested in contributing to this as
best I am able.
I believe I have sufficient knowledge of the system I have previously
mentioned - the BT system - to successfully identify at least some important
and relevant areas.
I think this would be valuable as these suggestions are subject to scrutiny
and feed back.
Problems that might be tackled are the relationship between asset
management, upgrade or rewrite all and costs. I mention this because this
seems the least likely to succumb to a semantic treatment.
Not because there are no efforts in this direction, there are, but large
vendors (and perhaps smaller ones, I don't know) have specialisms in this
area which are both complex and difficult to assess from the outside.
But any proposal for a major site improvement immediately raises the
question of whether the existing site should be scrapped, up graded or
worked around, that is bolted onto.
Proposals have to be made in the context of these three possibilities.
The very first stage might be to outline what is needed to clarify the
decision between them.
This is an issue of 'where to begin'.
Does semantic technology have a role here, as opposed to positing itself as
a future implementation goal (a must have) to solve other problems?
In other words, how down and dirty and detailed can semantic technologies *
usefully* become?
I find this an interesting problem.

Best,
Adam


On 3 April 2010 08:42, Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>> I am not 100% sure that this would be relevant for all use cases, though.
>> Semantic Web technologies are often used behind the scenes, so to say, as
>> part of the back end (typical example is BT's use case).
>
>
>
> yep sure - perhaps it may be useful to distinguish  these technologies into
> two groups for this purpose, those who reqire a gui and those who dont?
>
> though even backend sw system components may benefit from better specified
> interfaces for the purpose
> of facilitating integration with other systems
>
> as I mentioned offlist to a replyt to Danny, it may be useful also having
> some metrics/parameters of what would be considered
> a desirable success factor/adoption for a technology, to gauge the
> effectiveness of the results achieved
> (is there any objective way to say if the sw is being realised or not, or
> to what extent and in any measureable way?)
>
> anyway I do think its important to have a w3c focus on this, I have seen sw
> researchers and academics taking
> the w3c guidlines and starndard very seriously and to the letter - some
> usability and interfaces design tied in the specs, as well as
> some target metrics for deployments, can only help to make sure the whole
> picture is developed rather than just parts of it
> even when the research emphasis is inherently elsewhere
>
>
> Let me think a bit more about this
>
> PDM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> That is why I think you should look at them first.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>>
>> >
>> > 2. to make sure the interface satisfies the user requirement (as opposed
>> to the user requirements as presupposed by the developer) a
>> > task analysis would be useful , this would have to be done by the
>> authors of the case studies, in conjunction with users and some usability
>> > person (developers are generally not good at seeing the system from the
>> user perspective)
>> >
>> > http://www.usabilitynet.org/tools/taskanalysis.htm
>> >
>> >
>> > 3. to issue guidelines for researchers to make sure use requirements,
>>  usability standards and suitable interfaces should be prioritized
>> > and developed in parallel with other aspects of the 'infrastructure'
>> >
>> > 4. I am sure I dont have to say this, but users should be found among a
>> wider and heterogeneous stakholder pool, so it would be a question
>> > of the respective researchers to establish a network of stakeholders and
>> users among their target communities referred to in the repsective case
>> studies
>> >
>> >
>> > Happy to contribute to this side of the sw effort if I can, a DERI MSc
>> student contacted me offliest may be able to
>> > help lead this effort, will ping you her details separately
>> >
>> >
>> > PDM
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>> > Additionally to Nodalities...
>> >
>> > A fairly long time ago we started a collection of SW Use Cases and Case
>> Studies at W3C:
>> >
>> > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/sweo/public/UseCases/
>> >
>> > the goal was to collect real SW deployment examples in industry and
>> academia (ie, not reports on university projects). It is not perfect, it is
>> not complete, but it is a start. W3C decided _not_ to 'edit' those entries
>> but, with minor modifications, take what is out there which also explains
>> the different style and, frankly, quality of the submissions.
>> >
>> > It is true that, in the last year, the number of submissions slowed down
>> which may be my fault; I do chase applications but it is difficult to get
>> people do the extra mile to write things down and sometimes I give up. But
>> improving, enriching, etc, this collection would be good and any help would
>> be greatly welcome....
>> >
>> > Ivan
>> >
>> >
>> > On Apr 1, 2010, at 03:25 , Ian Davis wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Tuesday, March 30, 2010, Karl Dubost <karl+w3c@la-grange.net<karl%2Bw3c@la-grange.net>>
>> wrote:
>> > >>
>> > >> Danny has been one of the most convincing evangelist for years. We
>> need more.
>> > >> ACTION: Tell a story to people.
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > We (Talis) are doing this with Nodalities magazine, blogs and
>> > > podcasts, reaching out beyond the technologists. If you have stories
>> > > we want to help you get them known - free distribution for your ideas,
>> > > software, products, services or whatever. The only cost is the time it
>> > > takes you to write a couple of pages or to chat to us over skype. Just
>> > > email us at nodalities-magazine@talis.com
>> > >
>> > > Remember no-one on this mailing list is a target for evangelism: we're
>> > > all convinced already! None of us are really target users for this
>> > > stuff either because we're much more interested in the architecture
>> > > and technology. We need to share stories and evangelise much wider to
>> > > the people who decide what technologies their organisations should
>> > > invest in.
>> > >
>> > > Ian
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> > Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> > mobile: +31-641044153
>> > PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> > FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Paola Di Maio
>> > **************************************************
>> > “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
>> > Albert Einstein
>> > **************************************************
>> >
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
>> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paola Di Maio
> **************************************************
> “Logic will get you from A to B. Imagination will take you everywhere.”
> Albert Einstein
> **************************************************
>
>
Received on Saturday, 3 April 2010 09:58:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:17 UTC