Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

Another vote for keeping the list.

Paul

> On 15 Oct 2018, at 12:44, Sergio José Rodríguez Méndez <srodriguez@pet.cs.nctu.edu.tw> wrote:
> 
> +1 to keep the list up "as is"
> 
> /$¡rm
> Best regards,
> 
> Sergio José Rodríguez Méndez (羅士豪)
> Pervasive Embedded Technologies Laboratory (PET Lab)
> Computer Science Department
> National Chiao Tung University
> <https://w3id.org/people/sergio>
> 
> 
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 11:31 PM Axel Polleres <axel@polleres.net> wrote:
>> +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
>>