W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > October 2018

Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

From: cbobed <cbobed@unizar.es>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2018 08:28:10 +0200
To: semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <3275bc8f3756c98fa345d3479829c1b0@unizar.es>
+1 to keeping the list "as is".


El 2018-10-16 03:09, Ricardo Rocha escribiĆ³:
> +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
Received on Tuesday, 16 October 2018 06:33:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:56 UTC