W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: New Semantic-Web List?

From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 23:13:47 +0000 (GMT)
To: www-rdf-interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0011132303060.13918-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

I thought we had this discussion last week!

W3C have already established such a list, semantic-web@w3.org, along
with supporting infrastructure (URL persistence policy, web archives,
searching etc). The question is not whether to set up such a
list (that piece of administrivia was done some time back). Rather,
whether we should properly announce it, figure out how it can be scoped
so as not to overlap with www-talk, RDF IG, RDF-Logic lists. As I
outlined in a previous msg, we held back from publicising the W3C SW
list because it was unclear how to characterise its role, if any,
alongside existing lists. 

While folk can do what they want, set up lists elsewhere etc, I'd prefer
it if we could avoid muddying the picture by having too many generic SW
lists. If semantic-web@w3.org has a good use, let's use it. Right now
I'm not personally persuaded by the 'www-talk is dead/boring/noisy'
argument. That list has a long heritage and I'm reluctant to go
reinventing it with a 'future-of-the-web' list. But if it makes sense to
the SW developer community to spread SW discussion across another list,
semantic-web@w3.org seems as good a list as any to be home to
that.

Dan




On Mon, 13 Nov 2000, Sean B. Palmer wrote:

> Dear All,
> Further to the earlier discussions about mailing lists for the Semantic Web,
> I was wondering if it would be a good idea to start a public abstract and
> generic Semantic Web list? It would need to be clear in its
> scope/aims/coverage, but as long as it was well chartered, I believe it
> would form a useful addition to the current palate of lists.
> At the moment we have the excellent RDF IG list, but it is only chartered to
> provide discussions on the Semantic Web and its relavence to RDF. Future of
> the Web discussions should theoretically take place on www-talk; but that
> list is rarely used, and is becoming decrepit.
> An abstract SW discussion list would not in any way undermine this list (RDF
> IG), or the conversations on it, and in rare circumsatnces, CCing may need
> to take place (where discussions contain both abstract SW discussions, and
> RDF), but apart from that, I feel that the two lists would complement each
> other perfectly.
> I have already recieved a lot of support on this matter, but I would like to
> throw it open to the floor, why does everyone think?
> In short, the reasons for creating a new list are as follows:
> 
> 1. Having a public Semantic Web (SW) list provides a nice forum and an
> umbrella for public SW related activities.
> 2. At the moment, there is no official home for *abstract and generic* SW
> conversations. Conversations like that on RDF IG, xml-dev etc. tend to go
> quiet after a while, and have no real direction.
> 3. I feel that SW conversations are a highly broad subject, a subject so
> vast that it warrants a list of its own.
> 
> (Sorry if you've seen those reasons before, I have already contacted quite a
> few people about this!) Potentially, this is a very good idea, but the
> keyword is CAUTION.
> 
> Kindest Regards,
> Sean B. Palmer
> ----------------------------------------------------
> The Semantic Web: A Resource - http://xhtml.waptechinfo.com/swr/
> WAP Tech Info - http://www.waptechinfo.com/
> Mysterylights.com - http://www.mysterylights.com/
> ----------------------------------------------------
> "The Internet; is that thing still around?" - Homer J. Simpson
> 
> 
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 18:15:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:46 GMT