W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2011

Re: Schema.org considered helpful

From: adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:51:06 +0100
Message-ID: <BANLkTimNQvp2iFTLPNB+ArWmnScvH9Bc_A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com>
Cc: Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Lin,
A couple of things.
Your quote says 'the Semantic Web academic community...' but you just
mention 'the SemWeb community...', so somehow I assume that for you the one
is synonymous with the other.
When you say 'are pushing potentially interested people away from joining
the effort' which effort is this (activity or group of activities in which
people might take part) and towards what goal or set of goals?
I think this seems very different if we are thinking about academic or
largely academic funded projects compared to potential commercial projects.
For instance, from my very limited experience in academia, I understand that
one goal is to publish original work which, of course, goes into the
knowledge pool. How something is judged original is another issue, obviously
it is not a straight forward issue. One trajectory that has to be considered
is existing expertise in the academic group.
This can usefully be contrasted with the story I tell in my earlier post.
There is no call for originality in that scenario, far from it. Propitious
circumstances and originality in the market for viable business use cases
are not necessarily related. I would say it is only by some happy and rare
chance that they are (and, true, businesses have been founded on them).
You say 'Paola di Malo has often brought up the need for the SemWeb
community to look to the methods of the software engineering discipline,
with it's greater focus on empirical analysis of how developers use tools.'
Yes, well a tool is a tool. This cannot answer the bigger issues.
Think about this:-
example 1.
Deri is in a position to make the case for what I discuss in my earlier post
to (any relevant) government. For all I know they have, but assuming not,
why might that be. Only an organisation of some stature has a chance making
an approach to government - hence Deri as a candidate. As I say, assuming
not, it would have something to do with the way they (Deri) define their
business. We are again in the realm of the (un)propitious.
example 2.
It is possible to make the web 'more intelligent' but, remember, this
probably (almost definitely) contradicts the big three's business model.
Don't expect any support from that quarter. (Well apart from a few unhelpful
scraps.)

The question is how can the SemWeb academic community address these issues?

Best,

Adam

On 17 June 2011 12:37, Lin Clark <lin.w.clark@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>>
>>> That's interesting. Was there anybody who pointed this out at the time?
>>
>>
> Or maybe this was sarcastic... if so, sorry for the misunderstanding :)
>
Received on Friday, 17 June 2011 12:51:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:25 UTC