Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

I agree with your comment below, Dan, and very much appreciate all of 
the context (historical and otherwise) that you've provided to the 
discussion.

Best,
David

On 10/17/2018 10:20 AM, Dan Brickley wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2018, 10:14 David Martin, <david@martinwork.net 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:juanfederico@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>         +1 to "keeping the list as it is"
>>
>>         --
>>         Juan Sequeda, Ph.D
>>         www.juansequeda.com <http://www.juansequeda.com>
>>
>>
>>         On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 4:37 PM Franconi Enrico
>>         <franconi@inf.unibz.it <mailto:franconi@inf.unibz.it>> wrote:
>>
>>             +1
>>             Enrico
>>
>>>             On 15 Oct 2018, at 17:36, Martin Hepp <mfhepp@gmail.com
>>>             <mailto:mfhepp@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             +1
>>>             Martin
>>>
>>>             ---------------------------------------
>>>             martin hepp
>>>             www: http://www.heppnetz.de/
>>>             email: mhepp@computer.org <mailto:mhepp@computer.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>             Am 15.10.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Axel Polleres
>>>             <axel@polleres.net <mailto: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
>>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>>             <mailto:david@dbooth.org>>
>>>>>             *Sent:*15 October 2018 16:09
>>>>>             *To:*xueyuan; semantic-web@w3.org
>>>>>             <mailto: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
>>>>>             <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?
>>>>>
>>>>>             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
>>>>
>>
>