Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, 10:14 David Martin, <david@martinwork.net> wrote:

> And another +1 for "keeping the list as it is"
>
> FWIW, I am more fond of the term "Semantic Web" than I am of "linked open
> data" or "linked data", and I believe that the usage of "Semantic Web" has
> evolved to encompass the entire spectrum from theoretic/research-oriented
> efforts to application-oriented efforts.
>

SW has definitely matured, especially with the rise of "knowledge graph"
considerations, which nudge us towards paying more attention to the fiddly
practicalities of doing this stuff at scale, as well as the opportunities
arising from Machine Learning, and the more
reference/reconciliation-oriented aspects of "semantics". I don't think we
need to pick between semantic-web@ and public-lod@, there is healthy
overlap, some differing priorities and concerns, and the common element is
a shared broadly graphy shared data model.


Cheers,
> – David
>
> On 10/16/2018 3:18 PM, adasal wrote:
>
> +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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>