Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

And another +1 for "keeping the list as it is"

FWIW, I am more fond of the term "Semantic Web" than I am of "linked 
open data" or "linked data", and I believe that the usage of "Semantic 
Web" has evolved to encompass the entire spectrum from 
theoretic/research-oriented efforts to application-oriented efforts.

Cheers,
– David

On 10/16/2018 3:18 PM, adasal wrote:
> +1 to keep as is.
>
> Some of the conversations held here are extraordinarily interesting. 
> Of note the recent seventeen email exchange mainly between Henry Story 
> and Pat Hayes the first week of September, which I am still re-reading.
> Henry adds to this in the current thread (repurposed as RDF(-DEV), 
> back to the future (was Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed)), 
> and I think his points are well made: the intersection of semantics 
> and pragmatism.
> I'm a psychoanalysts interested in neuroscience and 
> neuro-psychoanalysis and I find all of this very interesting, albeit 
> that it pushes me where I am not fully able to go by virtue of the 
> constraints of my time and intellect.
> Surely that's a good thing?
>
>
> Adam Saltiel
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:57 PM, Juan Sequeda juanfederico@gmail.com 
> <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>     +1 to "keeping the list as it is"
>
>     --
>     Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
>     www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com>
>
>
>     On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:37 PM Franconi Enrico
>     <franconi@inf.unibz.it <mailto:franconi@inf.unibz.it>> wrote:
>
>         +1
>         Enrico
>
>>         On 15 Oct 2018, at 17:36, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com
>>         <mailto:mfhepp@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         +1
>>         Martin
>>
>>         ---------------------------------------
>>         martin hepp
>>         www: http://www.heppnetz.de/
>>         email: mhepp@computer.org <mailto:mhepp@computer.org>
>>
>>
>>         Am 15.10.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Axel Polleres
>>         <axel@polleres.net <mailto:axel@polleres.net>>:
>>
>>>         +1 to keep the list up "as is"
>>>
>>>         Axel
>>>         --
>>>         Dr. Axel Polleres
>>>         url: http://www.polleres.net/  twitter: @AxelPolleres
>>>
>>>>         On 15.10.2018, at 17:20, John Leonard
>>>>         <john.leonard@incisivemedia.com
>>>>         <mailto:john.leonard@incisivemedia.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>         I prefer Linked Data as a term (I've never met anyone who
>>>>         understands what the Semantic Web is outside of people who
>>>>         are actually creating it whereas Linked Data is
>>>>         self-explanatory, at least in terms of getting over the
>>>>         first hurdle), but does Linked Data have close enough to
>>>>         the same meaning to satisfy everyone?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>         ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>         *From:*David Booth <david@dbooth.org <mailto:david@dbooth.org>>
>>>>         *Sent:*15 October 2018 16:09
>>>>         *To:*xueyuan; semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>
>>>>         *Subject:*Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed
>>>>         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
>>>>         <mailto: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?
>>>>
>>>>         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
>>>
>