Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

Keep the list as is. I don't care about the mechanics of the "behind the
scenes" W3C book-keeping, but inertia is a real thing, and it's a lot
easier to keep people subscribed to, and talk in, this list as opposed to
asking people to join (a) new list(s), etc.


Phil
~~~
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM


On Tue, Oct 23, 2018 at 12:10 PM ProjectParadigm-ICT-Program <
metadataportals@yahoo.com> wrote:

> +1 to keep list as is.
>
> Milton Ponson
> GSM: +297 747 8280
> PO Box 1154, Oranjestad
> Aruba, Dutch Caribbean
> Project Paradigm: Bringing the ICT tools for sustainable development to
> all stakeholders worldwide through collaborative research on applied
> mathematics, advanced modeling, software and standards development
>
>
> On Friday, October 19, 2018 3:31 PM, adasal <adam.saltiel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> From Camus, "because as he framed it "naming things badly adds to the
> misfortune of the world"." That is a biblical reference, or sort of
> anti-reference, too.
> Well it's an interesting and delightful discussion. I find it funny that
> people are thinking to rename the list, I very much like the name it has!
> But if you will excuse the whimsy, how about w3, then it would be
> w3@w3.org. I'm making mischief. You know that Gavin Wood
> http://gavwood.com/ claims to have coined the term web 3? "I came up with
> the terms 'web three' and 'allegality'."
> He manages make 2014 seem such a long time ago!
> Anyway, this touches on many issues: naming, appropriation,
> reappropriation, truth, lies, falsehood.
> I'm not meaning to poke great fun at Gavin Wood apart from so as to say I
> believe there are lies and serious lies. Serious lies are those to do with
> our own personal psychology.
> Surely, I can see that all of this is for another discussion.
> Still, we can speak truly and we can speak falsely, we can name correctly
> and we can name incorrectly.
> How interesting then the allusion to the "outerverse", the objective or
> outer mind of the deity where names are just given.
> Working in the semantic web people know that names and concepts are not
> "just given". Where do they come from, how are they established? Can an AI
> help, perhaps working with the most carefully crafted ontology, or was that
> even ever the aim?
> I think not, however the discussion doesn't end here ….
>
> Adam
>
>
> Adam Saltiel
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2018 1:54 PM, Nicolas Chauvat nicolas.chauvat@logilab.fr
> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 02:09:48PM -0700, Dan Brickley wrote:
> > May I gently suggest that the name isn't the core problem here?
>
> In my opinion, the core problem the Web is trying to solve is "How
> could we share the things we have in our computers in a way that is
> interoperable and as simple as it could be ?".
>
> URLs being names for the things we share on the Web, I would argue
> that names are at the core of the Web and that the great advance of
> the Web was to embody the idea of hypertext by building on the already
> working Domain Name System (names again).
>
> RDF is a special case among the languages that are used to share data
> over the Web because its uses web-enabled names (URLs) to encode the
> data. It is like sending a text to someone after annotating each and
> every single word with its entry in a specific edition of a
> dictionnary. Say good bye to polysemy and hello to immediate lookup of
> definitions.
>
> That core problem stated, I can't help thinking with
> https://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q34670 that naming is very important
> in any thought process, because as he framed it "naming things badly
> adds to the misfortune of the world".
>
> And what we are doing on this list if not thinking about and designing
> the tools to solve the above problem ? If we can agree on the right
> names for the different parts of the Semantic Web we have been
> designing, I believe we are making progress.
>
> --
> Nicolas Chauvat
>
> logilab.fr - services en informatique scientifique et gestion de
> connaissances
>
>
>
>
>