W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > May 2004

Re: transition www-rdf-logic to public-owl-dev?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 14:56:43 +0100
Message-ID: <409B959B.30304@w3.org>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org

Dan Connolly wrote:

> Jim H. has been workin on an OWL homepage...
>   http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/
> and it got me thinking about creating a public-owl-dev
> mailing list, ala xmlschema-dev
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/
> We still have www-rdf-rules around for public
> discussion of rules and topics near the RDF Data Access WG.
> If we make a public-owl-dev list, is www-rdf-logic
> still worth keeping?

If we do that, I'd rather do it as part of a more comprehensive fixup of 
our RDF/SW mailing lists. Generally, I'd be wary of this "don't solve 
this small problem until we address this possibly-unaddressable larger 
problem", but with mailing lists, their individual chararacter and role 
is in large part carved out through contrast with their neighbours.

There are a number of lists associated with the Semantic Web Interest 
Group. See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/ -> 
http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html#meetings  for those 
called out during the last rechartering: www-rdf-logic, 
www-rdf-calendar,  www-rdf-rules, public-semweb-lifesci,  www-annotation.

The biggest problem I've seen is www-rdf-rules and www-rdf-logic. 
Former: "This mailing list is intented for the discussion of queries and 
rules for RDF data. We invite practical discussions with the goal of 
coordination and shared understanding of other implementations."
Latter: "The www-rdf-logic list provides a forum for technical 
discussion concerning the design of logic-based languages for use on the 
Web.". I think discussion is split between these two pretty arbitrarily, 
based on historical accident of who subscribed to which list when.

The www-rdf-rules list is sort of a public-rdf-dawg-dev ish in scope, 
now that we have a working group there. We don't have an explicit "-dev" 
life-after-REC list for the RDFCore work either, yet, although 
wwww-rdf-comments often serves that purpose (but wasn't meant for 
discussion). We have www-rdf-interest as the 'home' list of an interest 
group that has just been renamed from 'RDF IG' to 'Semantic Web IG'. We 
also have, unused, a couple of possibly-useful lists that were created 
and then held back from deployment: 'www-rdf-specs', and 'semantic-web'. 
I lean towards promoting use of semantic-web@w3.org as a home list for 
the SW IG, so that we are more inclusive of the OWL community.

I agree that having an OWL-dev list, a www-rdf-rules, and a
www-rdf-logic is a bit crowded. Initially I'd encourage www-rdf-logic to 
take on that role, but in a way that keeps OWL explicitly part of the 
broader Semantic Web effort (RDF, Query, possible Rules, ...) rather 
than living in its own world. If the choice of public-owl-dev over 
www-rdf-logic is purely one of naming, I'd like to make it in the same 
decision as switching to use of semantic-web over www-rdf-rules as the 
IG's main list.

Is there anything that you'd hope to happen on public-owl-dev that 
couldn't happen on www-rdf-logic given its current charter / content?
Is there anything happening here that is particularly at odds with an 
'OWL-dev' role?

Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 09:57:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:42 UTC