Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

Just wondering what people's thoughts are, rather than Semantic Web or
Linked Data, what about Machine-Readable Web? It's simple and
self-explanatory (a quality John mentioned), conveys its potential power
(as Melvin brought up), and it ties together with machine learning.

It's also accurate, I think:

*"I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of
analyzing all the data on the Web"*
- Tim Berners-Lee, *Weaving the Web*, 1999


Anthony

On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:28 AM David Martin <david@martinwork.net> wrote:

> I agree with your comment below, Dan, and very much appreciate all of the
> context (historical and otherwise) that you've provided to the discussion.
>
> Best,
> David
>
> On 10/17/2018 10:20 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, 10:14 David Martin, <david@martinwork.net> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> SW has definitely matured, especially with the rise of "knowledge graph"
> considerations, which nudge us towards paying more attention to the fiddly
> practicalities of doing this stuff at scale, as well as the opportunities
> arising from Machine Learning, and the more
> reference/reconciliation-oriented aspects of "semantics". I don't think we
> need to pick between semantic-web@ and public-lod@, there is healthy
> overlap, some differing priorities and concerns, and the common element is
> a shared broadly graphy shared data model.
>
>
> 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 wrote:
>>
>>> +1 to "keeping the list as it is"
>>>
>>> --
>>> Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
>>> www.juansequeda.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:37 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>> Enrico
>>>
>>> On 15 Oct 2018, at 17:36, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> +1
>>> Martin
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------
>>> martin hepp
>>> www:  http://www.heppnetz.de/
>>> email: mhepp@computer.org
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 15.10.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Axel Polleres <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>
>>> 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>
>>> *Sent:* 15 October 2018 16:09
>>> *To:* xueyuan; 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 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>