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

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

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 07 May 2004 15:19:42 +0100
Message-ID: <409B9AFE.5080307@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, www-rdf-logic@w3.org


I personally find the overlaps between the lists difficult.
I would prefer semantic-web@w3.org for everything that is not directly 
WG related, i.e. a single IG list.
Alternatively an upgrade to the mail-server so that cross-posts get sent 
to everyone in all named lists once; and to initiate a culture of 
cross-posting, (something that I tend to avoid, with the risk that some 
people subscribed to rdf-logic miss posts that I would like them to see, 
but which seemed more appropriate to rdf-interest, and vice-versa)

I guess a list to talk specifically about OWL, and a list specifically 
to talk about the new DAWG QL might make sense. The current divide 
between rdf-interest and rdf-logic doesn't make sense to me for much of 
the foundational work, which requires discussion from both communities, 
but I can see that there are many people in rdf-interest who might find 
some of the discussion in rdf-logic off-putting and conversely.

Jeremy





Dan Brickley wrote:

> 
> 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?
> 
> Dan
> 
Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 10:22:20 UTC

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