RE: Naming for Social Web groups...

Oh, sorry, I did not know that; interesting.  I changed it back to just plain "Social Interest Group".

I'd be curious to hear more about the non-web use cases. 

  -- Ann


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry Halpin [mailto:hhalpin@w3.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2015 7:25 AM
> To: Bassetti, Ann; Daniel Harris; public-social-interest@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Naming for Social Web groups...
> 
> 
> 
> On 02/09/2015 09:29 PM, Bassetti, Ann wrote:
> > wow, good catch, Daniel!  Just an oversight, AFAIK.  I just changed the title
> of the IG page, but don't have time right now to go digging for other
> instances.  Feel free to edit anything you think is incorrect.
> >
> 
> Perhaps Ann and others in the IG missed this conversation, so I'll repeat it -
> not sure if it went out or happened purely during the AC charter review.
> 
> At bequest of our former chair, Mark Crawford, we called it the "Social
> Interest Group" when weinsofar as it's domain was all possible social
> applicatons, some of which may not involve the "Web" (i.e. use of HTTP,
> URIs, etc.). In particular, I think Mark was interested in Internet of Things
> use-cases.
> 
> Thus there is no mistake. You guys in the Social Interest Group have *all
> social interactions in any technology*. It's big shoes to fill, but we know you
> can do it!
> 
>    cheers,
>    harry
> 
> > Thanks!  -- Ann
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Daniel Harris [mailto:daniel@kendra.org.uk]
> >> Sent: Monday, February 09, 2015 12:23 PM
> >> To: public-social-interest@w3.org
> >> Subject: Naming for Social Web groups...
> >>
> >> Dear All,
> >>
> >> I note that there seems to be a naming pattern mismatch for the
> >> Social Web groups.
> >>
> >> If you take a look at:
> >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/Social
> >> You'll see "Social Web Interest Group" clearly stated but when you land
> at:
> >> https://www.w3.org/wiki/SocialIG
> >> You see "Social Interest Group" everywhere with no "Web".
> >>
> >> Just wondering why this is so and wondering if we are preparing to
> >> build standards then why is naming seemingly non-standard.
> >>
> >> Can anyone shed some light on this?
> >>
> >> Cheers Daniel
> >

Received on Tuesday, 10 February 2015 17:01:31 UTC