Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

I guess since its mostly silence and announcements, occasional spam and a
very occasional discussion
people may wonder who is still interested on the list. Nice to see
responses-

I used to enjoy the sanity and competence of the posts here on important
web related

Keep the list, maybe with some modified statement perhaps - something like
general w3c mailing list or something

it supports (valuable"?) connections /networks made in the last decades
around web topic, and the web is so central to everything
:-)

thanks to w3c core mission  of openness, everyone can connect at least at
some level
PDM




Dr Paola Di Maio
*A bit about me <https://about.me/paoladimaio>*





On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 9:17 AM Ricardo Rocha <coastrock@gmail.com> wrote:

> +1 to keeping the list "as is".
>
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 7:11 PM Melvin Carvalho <melvincarvalho@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>