Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

I'm also in favour of keeping the list as it is.


--AZ

Le 16/10/2018 à 08:28, cbobed a écrit :
> +1 to keeping the list "as is".
> 
> Carlos
> 
> El 2018-10-16 03:09, Ricardo Rocha escribió:
>> +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
>>>>>
> 
> 

-- 
Antoine Zimmermann
Institut Henri Fayol
École des Mines de Saint-Étienne
158 cours Fauriel
CS 62362
42023 Saint-Étienne Cedex 2
France
Tél:+33(0)4 77 42 66 03
Fax:+33(0)4 77 42 66 66
http://www.emse.fr/~zimmermann/
Member of team Connected Intelligence, Laboratoire Hubert Curien

Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2018 06:53:00 UTC