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

Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

From: Henry Story <henry.story@bblfish.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:44:02 +0200
Message-Id: <7A7ACBDB-B8E0-4E3B-93CA-B081D25836A3@bblfish.net>
Cc: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, David Booth <david@dbooth.org>, "semantic-web@w3.org Web" <semantic-web@w3.org>, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org>
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Here's a thought. Perhaps the thing is to put together a page  of all semantic web related activities mailing lists so
that people can understand where they may want to go for different conversations. Since mailing
lists tend to be somewhat exclusive as cross posting is frowned upon, this listing will tend to
create a readjustment of meanings of the mailing list. (Adding a new base distinction in language tends 
to refine the meaning of the other vocabulary - something that may be of interest to discuss here) 

Here are some lists I know of:

  - rdf-dev list: a more pragmatic do-it list, to help people work out how to use the tools and standards 
for development, ask questions regarding that, etc... (hope I have not misunderstood this), and so of course through that practical activity work out what pieces are missing in the standards.

  - linked data list: Relating to publishing and linking data on the web, often this is about big databases working out how to align ontologies, how to publish so that uris don't change, which ontologies are already widely used,...

  - semantic-web@w3.org <mailto:semantic-web@w3.org> a more theoretical list (hence the academic papers and phd positions) where
one can have discussions about the theory and future directions. This does not mean that pragmatics is not
part of it as I have argued. 
   So why not just go through academic papers? Well those tend to also be very siloed, and there has to be 
a place where one can ask questions that cross any theoretical field, or where one can discover where on
google scholar one should look. Or even just to know if there is any life in an idea at all.
 This is the mailing list I discovered about papers relating to category theory (CT) and RDF before I really
knew much about CT, and discovered the importance of the literature on contexts which I missed because
I equated those to modal logical concepts. That is there is a need to be able to speak to people who know logic,
pragmatics, modal logic, fuzzy logic, description logic, in the context of the the applications that these are useful for. 

   - solid:  that is a practical application of these tools and standards with the aim of thinking of applications as browsers that read and write the data. This immediately brings in access control issues, design issues, linked-data., schemas, efficient streming database development, programming languages, and pretty much all the w3c stack. As it is an engineering project that pushes the envelope in so many directions, it raises questions that often need the other lists to be discussed, and work to standardize, such as identity and access control logics. Developers tend to want to build things and they don't want to pause for 2 years to understand some of the other pieces in full.

There are a number of other lists of course with much narrower focus which one could also list and connect
in order to give a full picture of the whole activity in this domain, which is really quite vast.
  - webid
  - verifiable claims
  - blockchain on the semantic web?
  - ...

I am sure I have missed a lot, and that the chairs have a much better overview of the ecosystem, so such a page linking all these activities would look very different than what I put forward there.  And I guess there is already such a page up there :-) 


> On 16 Oct 2018, at 10:39, Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
> 
> Just one more point to add to Ralph's and Dan's points on this thread.
> 
> Keeping this list open as it is is, of course, not a problem whatsoever. As Ralph said, we thought the best is to let the community decide, and the reactions so far are pretty clear. However,
> 
> - We periodically raise the issue on what should happen with the various CFP-s, doctoral position announcements, etc. There are times when those dominate the mailing list. The last time this was discussed (I think Phil initiated this issue) there was a mild preference to let them come instead of using some existing filters used on other mailing lists at W3C. In fact, there is a filter active on the list, and that is yours truly:-): I get 4-5 such mails a week that come in as target for moderation which is done by me, and I have to use my best judgement whether those CFP-s are relevant to this list or not (roughly half of the mails are not). It is not a big deal and if the community decides that they should remain, I am happy playing the bad cop's role. But I must admit I personally find it a bit bothersome to see those mails in my mailboxes.  (Yes, I know, my life is not centered around research any more, so me being bothered is not necessary relevant…)
> 
> - As a bona fide interest group the SWIG had the possibility to publish Interest Group notes. It did not happen very often, but it did happen in the past (e.g., the microdata to RDF conversion, some vocabularies, etc.). That is not possible any more. Which means that it would still be worthwhile to set up a Community Group to replace the SWIG: that would give the possibility, if so decided, to publish CG reports with a somewhat official W3C status. (It may also give the group some extra facilities like Wiki pages.) Keeping this mailing list as 'the' list of the CG should be possible.
> 
> Thanks to all of you!
> 
> Ivan
> 
>> On 15 Oct 2018, at 21:32, Ralph Swick <swick@w3.org <mailto: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 <mailto: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.
>> 
>> -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
>> 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C 
> Publishing@W3C Technical Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ <http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/>
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704 <https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704>
> 


Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2018 10:44:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:42:02 UTC