| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Frank,
See my comments below:
<snip>
However, your W3C vs. IEEE comparison is apples and oranges. In your URL regarding W3C and its Semantic Web (I largely agree with those points on Slashdot), it discusses (1) the feasibility of the technology with respect to (paraphrasing) "all the pages on the web", and (2) the adoption of this technology for a significant portion of the web.
The SUO work doesn't frame itself in addressing all the needs of the web (it audience is probably different) and the SUO work doesn't set itself out to be adopted (large scale) by the web.
The point you make here about SUO goals isn't just obvious to me. Perhaps it would be beneficial to the group for someone to dig up the relevant "scope and goals" sections and explicate exactly what the differences are supposed to be. For my part, claiming that SUO work "doesn't set itself to be adopted (large scale) by the web" is tantamount to relegating it to obscurity. What, after all, is the point of providing ontologies to encourage application interoperability if none of this is to be directed at improving the Web? And one can only assume that such improvements, were they forthcoming by SUO, would be on a "large-scale"....
Erik
So it's not the IEEE is more "powerful", per se, than W3C ... it's that W3C has a different audience and different kind of expectation (with respect to adoption, etc.) than IEEE SUO.
-FF
_______________________________________________________________________
Frank Farance, Farance Inc. T: +1 212 486 4700 F: +1 212 759 1605
mailto:frank@farance.com http://farance.com
Standards, products, services for the Global Information Infrastructure