Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

+1 to keeping the list "as is".

On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:11 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 00:53, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 12:32 Ralph Swick, <swick@w3.org> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018-10-15 11:09 AM, David Booth wrote:
>>> > On 10/15/2018 10:49 AM, xueyuan wrote:
>>> >  > This message is to inform you that the Semantic Web Interest Group
>>> >  > is now closed, [ . . . . ]
>>> >  > With the introduction of Community Groups we now encourage the
>>> >  > participants in the IG forum to
>>> >  > establish Community Groups to continue the conversations.
>>> >
>>> > Given that the semantic-web@w3.org email list has served the
>>> community
>>> > very well, I think it would be helpful for continuity if a Community
>>> > Group could take over the existing email list.  Is this possible?  And
>>> > if so, does this mean that we should now create such a community group?
>>>
>>> Ivan and I have been in conversation with DanBri for some time as the
>>> formal closing of the Interest Group was pending.  This specific
>>> question was part of that discussion; whether to continue the big
>>> semantic-web distribution list as a Community Group resource or use the
>>> opportunity to do some housekeeping.
>>>
>>> Ivan and I decided to let the community decide -- and those discussions
>>> are welcome on the list.
>>>
>>> And again, I can't overstate our appreciate to DanBri for his gentle
>>> facilitation of the discussions on this list, jumping in as the IG chair
>>> and list moderator only when it was critical to do so.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks Ralph. I had hoped to propose a new followup Community Group last
>> week but got swept up in f2f discussions during the ISWC conference.
>>
>> Both SW and Linked Data have rather prescriptive overtones (1-star,
>> 5-star, #-/ redirects etc.). My suggestion to Ralph, Ivan and team was to
>> go back to the original name we used prior to creation of 1999's RDF
>> Interest Group. It was "RDF-DEV" originally, named in tribute to XML's now
>> decades-spanning XML-DEV community.
>>
>
> Linked data already has a list.
>
> I think changing the name of something that's been going a fair requires
> some onus of the proposer to justify it.
>
> Regarding the specific motivation, it would be good to look at.
>
> Prescriptive.  Not sure what this alludes to.  There have been debates
> over different quality of data (1 star - 5 star) but surely that is not
> only as expected, but as designed!
>
> The semantic web gives you a protocol where one set of data can interface
> with another.  So the degree of plumbing goes from the network, to the
> data.  Instead of looking at packets you're looking at data shapes.  So
> isnt it only natural that data quality becomes an increasing topic of
> interest.
>
> On the specific case of #-/ redirects, tatooed agents not withstanding,
> this is simply a conversation about data shapes, isnt it (maybe im using
> the wrong word there)?  In some systems the data model overloads the shape
> of data so that a URI points to a document and class.  This for some is a
> neat slight of hand, and no future analysis is needed.  For others the
> overloading causes edge cases which are hard to resolve.  The example I
> once gave is, "I might like RIcky Martin's home page, but I might not lick
> RIcky Martin".  Isn't this the kind of discussion that is to be encouraged
> as we start to learn to put data together, and learn about interop?
>
> Final observation.  I came to this community as a skeptic.  For many the
> term "rdf" doesnt mean much, but the term "semantic web" is magic.
> Outsiders dont know what it does, they know it's complex, too complex for
> them, but they also know it contains a dark power, that if one day is
> unleashed, will be a game changer.  I think it's a mixed brand but a
> powerful one.  Not heard enough yet to feel like ditching it, but am open
> and interested.
>
>
>>
>> Clearly we have accumulated many technologies, slogans and acronyms over
>> the years around RDF, but things are still playing out broadly according to
>> the original W3C Metadata Activity vision. At ISWC it became clear to me
>> that memories of that era aren't so much fading as largely non-existent
>> amongst many in the Semantic Web and Linked Data world. I like the idea of
>> an RDFIG/SWIG successor Community Group that offers some continuity with
>> those times, and with the RDF(etc.) project's origins in "technology and
>> society", metadata, browser and digital library concerns.
>>
>> Fortunately, the W3C Community Group mechanism is open and decentralized.
>> Anyone can propose a group, and we already have many around more specific
>> RDF-based technologies (like SPARQL, OWL, ShEx, schemas, etc.).
>>
>> So, that is my proposal for a followup group. There may be others, and
>> that is not necessarily a bad thing.
>>
>> "RDF-DEV, for developments relating to W3C RDF, including collaboration
>> around applications, schemas, and past/present/future related standards."
>>
>> Dan
>>
>>
>>
>>> -Ralph
>>>
>>> > My one hesitation in continuing with the existing list is that the
>>> > choice of the name "Semantic Web" has long been recognized as a
>>> > marketing mistake, so perhaps it is time to say goodbye to it.
>>> "Linked
>>> > Data" is a substantially better term.
>>> >
>>> > Thoughts?
>>> >
>>> > David Booth
>>> >
>>>
>>