- From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 07:22:15 +1000
- To: "Dan Brickley" <danbri@danbri.org>
- Cc: "Orri Erling" <erling@xs4all.nl>, "Skinner, Karen (NIH/NIDA) [E]" <kskinner@nida.nih.gov>, "W3C HCLSIG hcls" <public-semweb-lifesci@w3.org>
2008/6/27 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>: > > Orri Erling wrote: >> >> As providers of RDF database software, also for the life sciences >> community, >> we find this list a useful resource for maintaining a feel for the use >> cases >> and requirements as they emerge. I would be in favor of leaving this list >> open to the public. > > A model that has proved successful for almost all the other W3C mailing > lists created around Semantic Web (even member-only groups) work is: > publically readable lists, publically postable (technically at least), and > then tweakable social conventions governing quite how many non-group-member > posts are acceptable. This was adequate for the RDFCore, OWL, and other > groups. A 'goldfish bowl' metaphor captures the 'working in public view' > part, but I think being publically postable too has proven both important > and valuable. The degree to which non-members are encouraged to post and > contribute can then be left to the chairs, but the occasional input at least > from others is not ruled out mechnically (ie. by the list admin settings). > > As a point of comparison, the original RDF Model & Syntax, and RDF Schema > WGs (1997-9) worked on secret mailing lists with no public participation or > visibility beyond periodic working draft publications. That style of WG is I > think quite reasonably considered obsolete; we've done much better since by > being more open... > > cheers, > > Dan > > (SW Interest Group chair) > I think for standards generating lists the read-only or private mode could work, but I always thought public-semweb-lifesci was about exchanging ideas, and generating best practices type documents for and by a variety of people working with life sciences data, as opposed to standards which require more focused attention from a few individuals. I have benefited a lot from this list being open to discussion from everyone so I hope it stays that way. Reading archives just wouldn't be the same! Thanks in advance for keeping this a publically postable mailing list (if that is the final decision) Cheers, Peter
Received on Thursday, 26 June 2008 21:22:50 UTC