- From: <ssarkar@ayushnet.com>
- Date: 3 Nov 2000 09:43:46 -0800
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, danbri@w3.org
I agree with the view that 'SW' should be part of our discussion here. We should discuss RDF from a broader perspective (sometimes in conjunction with XHTML, XSLT and databases). --s sarkar (ssarkar@ayushnet.com) On Fri, 03 November 2000, Dan Brickley wrote: > > > > > An interesting piece from Edd Dumbill appeared on XML.com yesterday: > > > http://www.xml.com/pub/2000/11/01/semanticweb/index.html [[ > The Semantic Web: A Primer > by Edd Dumbill > The question "What is the Semantic Web?" is being asked with increasing > frequency. While mainstream media is content with a high level view, XML > developers want to know more, and discover the substance behind the > vision. > ]] > > > This strikes me as a useful article, both in terms of providing a > discussion strawman on what 'Semantic Web' might mean in practical terms, > as well as for surveying some key technologies, making the point that > XHTML, XSLT and mainstream XML apps will be criticial tools for the SW. > > Rather than gabble on about what I think Semantic Web might mean > I'm pretty curious to hear what folk on this list understand by the > phrase. As Edd points out, we could do with some more accessible materials > in this area. Some for example associate it with the > logic/inference/AI/KR end of things (ie. the www-rdf-logic theme) others > take a broader perspective, with the logic machinery being one set of > tools that we need to bring to bear. While we shouldn't get too hung up on > a slogan, I think it is important to have some discussion here on > 'Semantic Web' since for many of us there is a larger goal, towards which > RDF as-we-now-know-it is just a means to an end. If we're going to get to > the Semantic Web (for some interpretation of that phrase), I know a lot > of the work of getting there will be done participants (and lurkers) on > this mailing list. I'm particularly keen to see 'SW' fleshed out in terms > of real, buildable apps (http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/ has some nice > examples) - ideally, the discussion that Edd's article initiates will help > us characterise buildable SW projects. In our first year, much of the > discussion here has focussed on RDF in itself, rather than on what we all > hope to build on top of it. It's about time we balanced that with a little > discussion of what we all want out of this SW business. My own > (eg. [1]) answer is pretty simple: I want RDF because it seems a good way > of getting the Web that was originally proposed. Wondering how the rest > of you see it, > > Dan > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/1999/11/11-WWWProposal/thenandnow > > -- > mailto:danbri@w3.org
Received on Friday, 3 November 2000 12:44:18 UTC