Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 at 00:53, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018, 12:32 Ralph Swick, <swick@w3.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 2018-10-15 11:09 AM, David Booth wrote:
>> > 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?
>>
>> Ivan and I have been in conversation with DanBri for some time as the
>> formal closing of the Interest Group was pending.  This specific
>> question was part of that discussion; whether to continue the big
>> semantic-web distribution list as a Community Group resource or use the
>> opportunity to do some housekeeping.
>>
>> Ivan and I decided to let the community decide -- and those discussions
>> are welcome on the list.
>>
>> And again, I can't overstate our appreciate to DanBri for his gentle
>> facilitation of the discussions on this list, jumping in as the IG chair
>> and list moderator only when it was critical to do so.
>>
>
> Thanks Ralph. I had hoped to propose a new followup Community Group last
> week but got swept up in f2f discussions during the ISWC conference.
>
> Both SW and Linked Data have rather prescriptive overtones (1-star,
> 5-star, #-/ redirects etc.). My suggestion to Ralph, Ivan and team was to
> go back to the original name we used prior to creation of 1999's RDF
> Interest Group. It was "RDF-DEV" originally, named in tribute to XML's now
> decades-spanning XML-DEV community.
>

Linked data already has a list.

I think changing the name of something that's been going a fair requires
some onus of the proposer to justify it.

Regarding the specific motivation, it would be good to look at.

Prescriptive.  Not sure what this alludes to.  There have been debates over
different quality of data (1 star - 5 star) but surely that is not only as
expected, but as designed!

The semantic web gives you a protocol where one set of data can interface
with another.  So the degree of plumbing goes from the network, to the
data.  Instead of looking at packets you're looking at data shapes.  So
isnt it only natural that data quality becomes an increasing topic of
interest.

On the specific case of #-/ redirects, tatooed agents not withstanding,
this is simply a conversation about data shapes, isnt it (maybe im using
the wrong word there)?  In some systems the data model overloads the shape
of data so that a URI points to a document and class.  This for some is a
neat slight of hand, and no future analysis is needed.  For others the
overloading causes edge cases which are hard to resolve.  The example I
once gave is, "I might like RIcky Martin's home page, but I might not lick
RIcky Martin".  Isn't this the kind of discussion that is to be encouraged
as we start to learn to put data together, and learn about interop?

Final observation.  I came to this community as a skeptic.  For many the
term "rdf" doesnt mean much, but the term "semantic web" is magic.
Outsiders dont know what it does, they know it's complex, too complex for
them, but they also know it contains a dark power, that if one day is
unleashed, will be a game changer.  I think it's a mixed brand but a
powerful one.  Not heard enough yet to feel like ditching it, but am open
and interested.


>
> Clearly we have accumulated many technologies, slogans and acronyms over
> the years around RDF, but things are still playing out broadly according to
> the original W3C Metadata Activity vision. At ISWC it became clear to me
> that memories of that era aren't so much fading as largely non-existent
> amongst many in the Semantic Web and Linked Data world. I like the idea of
> an RDFIG/SWIG successor Community Group that offers some continuity with
> those times, and with the RDF(etc.) project's origins in "technology and
> society", metadata, browser and digital library concerns.
>
> Fortunately, the W3C Community Group mechanism is open and decentralized.
> Anyone can propose a group, and we already have many around more specific
> RDF-based technologies (like SPARQL, OWL, ShEx, schemas, etc.).
>
> So, that is my proposal for a followup group. There may be others, and
> that is not necessarily a bad thing.
>
> "RDF-DEV, for developments relating to W3C RDF, including collaboration
> around applications, schemas, and past/present/future related standards."
>
> Dan
>
>
>
>> -Ralph
>>
>> > 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
>> >
>>
>