Re: Semantic APIs

Lars,

Sorry, I have been ignoring email for days trying to work on both topic 
maps *and* a new round of ODF edits. The next version of ODF is going to 
be even better than the present one! (or so says its editor) ;-)

On 11/01/2011 12:24 PM, Lars Heuer wrote:
> [...]
>> http://www.durusau.net/publications/Semantic-APIs-Durusau.pdf
> It seems that Steve N. and Michel understood what Semantic APIs is
> about. I still don't get it.
>
> The description of the mapping
>
>      [...]
>      A semantic API, at a minimum, repeats the terminology of the
>      dataset, with at least one mapping to another terminology, with
>      the causes/reasons for the mapping being cited. Semantic APIs
>      should be capable of noting mappings to other, related data sets.
>      [...]
>
> is rather vague (maybe intentional). But a concrete example may help
> me to understand what you're talking about.
>

Was intentionally vague.

Reason?

*Not a project*

At the prior WG 3 meeting, Graham suggested that we have (I hate the 
terminology) a "vision" statement to inform WG3 activities for the next 
5 years or so.

That is where do we want to be, what do we want to work on *in general,* 
no one signing a blood oath, undertaking yet another death march, etc.

Just some creative (mine don't qualify in that regard) ideas that might 
get everyone excited.


> Further, I'd like to understand how the Semantic API differs from the
> current LOD/RDF approaches.
>
> Probably I should explain why I think that we don't need yet another
> WG3 project: WG3 has many unfinished projects (TMRM, SDShare, TMQL,
> GTM). Especially TMQL (candidate to be pronounced dead) would have
> been very important for Topic Maps. So, instead of yet another project
> it would be wiser to finish the homework before attempting to save the
> world, I guess. Further I wonder why the ISO label is needed in the
> current state of the project at all. If the motivation and vision
> attracts enough people, a Subject Maps WG can be founded and the
> results could become an ISO proposal. Like WHATWG [1] did for HTML5.
>

We don't *need another project* until we have SDShare (under another 
name, I have the documents in hand but may/may not finish filling it out 
for tomorrow) to be an object of discussion for the next WG 3 conference 
call.

The TMRM should be done by the end of November. You know what is going 
to happen to TMQL and GTM.

So, what we need (IMHO) is a creative statement that gets us all excited 
(NAP - NOT A PROJECT) and one or more skunk works projects that can be 
tested out/promoted by WG 3 members and if they catch on, then think 
about standardizing an established practice. To make it more attractive 
to government types and that sort of thing.

I think one or more Sourceforge/Github/etc. projects that may or may not 
attract other volunteers would be a great idea.

Less interested in setting up another group or organization. We haven't 
done well with that in the past, mostly because running the organization 
for a project eats up most of the cycles for working on the project.

Hope you are having a great evening!

Patrick

> [1]
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Hypertext_Application_Technology_Working_Group>
>
> Best regards,
> Lars


-- 
Patrick Durusau
patrick-Q/[email protected]
Chair, V1 - US TAG to JTC 1/SC 34
Convener, JTC 1/SC 34/WG 3 (Topic Maps)
Editor, OpenDocument Format TC (OASIS), Project Editor ISO/IEC 26300
Co-Editor, ISO/IEC 13250-1, 13250-5 (Topic Maps)

Another Word For It (blog): http://tm.durusau.net
Homepage: http://www.durusau.net
Twitter: patrickDurusau