+1 Martin --------------------------------------- martin hepp www: http://www.heppnetz.de/ email: mhepp@computer.org > Am 15.10.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net>: > > +1 to keep the list up "as is" > > Axel > -- > Dr. Axel Polleres > url: http://www.polleres.net/ twitter: @AxelPolleres > >> On 15.10.2018, at 17:20, John Leonard <john.leonard@incisivemedia.com> wrote: >> >> I prefer Linked Data as a term (I've never met anyone who understands what the Semantic Web is outside of people who are actually creating it whereas Linked Data is self-explanatory, at least in terms of getting over the first hurdle), but does Linked Data have close enough to the same meaning to satisfy everyone? >> >> >> From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org> >> Sent: 15 October 2018 16:09 >> To: xueyuan; semantic-web@w3.org >> Subject: Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed >> >> On 10/15/2018 10:49 AM, xueyuan wrote: >> > This message is to inform you that the Semantic Web Interest Group >> > is now closed, [ . . . . ] >> > With the introduction of Community Groups we now encourage the >> > participants in the IG forum to >> > establish Community Groups to continue the conversations. >> >> Given that the semantic-web@w3.org email list has served the community >> very well, I think it would be helpful for continuity if a Community >> Group could take over the existing email list. Is this possible? And >> if so, does this mean that we should now create such a community group? >> >> My one hesitation in continuing with the existing list is that the >> choice of the name "Semantic Web" has long been recognized as a >> marketing mistake, so perhaps it is time to say goodbye to it. "Linked >> Data" is a substantially better term. >> >> Thoughts? >> >> David Booth >
Received on Monday, 15 October 2018 15:36:29 UTC