Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

+1 to keep as is.
Some of the conversations held here are extraordinarily interesting. Of note the
recent seventeen email exchange mainly between Henry Story and Pat Hayes the
first week of September, which I am still re-reading.Henry adds to this in the
current thread (repurposed as RDF(-DEV), back to the future (was Re: Semantic
Web Interest Group now closed)), and I think his points are well made: the
intersection of semantics and pragmatism.I'm a psychoanalysts interested in
neuroscience and neuro-psychoanalysis and I find all of this very interesting,
albeit that it pushes me where I am not fully able to go by virtue of the
constraints of my time and intellect.Surely that's a good thing?

Adam Saltiel  





On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 10:57 PM, Juan Sequeda juanfederico@gmail.com  wrote:
+1 to "keeping the list as it is"

--
Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
www.juansequeda.com

On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:37 PM Franconi Enrico <franconi@inf.unibz.it> wrote:
+1 Enrico

On 15 Oct 2018, at 17:36, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com> wrote:  
+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