W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org > June 2008

Re: The W3C mailing lists will be limited to interest group participants.

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:22:15 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0806261422j2688605es148ad1221c62555b@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
Cc: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>, "Skinner, Karen (NIH/NIDA) [E]" <kskinner@nida.nih.gov>, "W3C HCLSIG hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>

2008/6/27 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.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)
>

I think for standards generating lists the read-only or private mode
could work, but I always thought public-semweb-lifesci was about
exchanging ideas, and generating best practices type documents for and
by a variety of people working with life sciences data, as opposed to
standards which require more focused attention from a few individuals.
I have benefited a lot from this list being open to discussion from
everyone so I hope it stays that way. Reading archives just wouldn't
be the same! Thanks in advance for keeping this a publically postable
mailing list (if that is the final decision)

Cheers,

Peter
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 21:22:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 18:00:52 GMT