- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:43:23 +0200
- To: Orri Erling <erling@xs4all.nl>
- Cc: "'Skinner, Karen (NIH/NIDA) [E]'" <kskinner@nida.nih.gov>, 'W3C HCLSIG hcls' <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
Orri Erling wrote: > > As providers of RDF database software, also for the life sciences community, > we find this list a useful resource for maintaining a feel for the use cases > and requirements as they emerge. I would be in favor of leaving this list > open to the public. A model that has proved successful for almost all the other W3C mailing lists created around Semantic Web (even member-only groups) work is: publically readable lists, publically postable (technically at least), and then tweakable social conventions governing quite how many non-group-member posts are acceptable. This was adequate for the RDFCore, OWL, and other groups. A 'goldfish bowl' metaphor captures the 'working in public view' part, but I think being publically postable too has proven both important and valuable. The degree to which non-members are encouraged to post and contribute can then be left to the chairs, but the occasional input at least from others is not ruled out mechnically (ie. by the list admin settings). As a point of comparison, the original RDF Model & Syntax, and RDF Schema WGs (1997-9) worked on secret mailing lists with no public participation or visibility beyond periodic working draft publications. That style of WG is I think quite reasonably considered obsolete; we've done much better since by being more open... cheers, Dan (SW Interest Group chair) -- http://danbri.org/
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 14:44:02 UTC