Re: Semantic Web Interest Group now closed

To me, the term 'machine-readable web' excludes an important target group:
us humans (assuming all current list subscribers are human). When I try
explain the concepts of Linked Data or the Semantic Web to an uninitiated I
like to use the terms 'web of data' or even shorter 'data web'. For some
more finesse the term 'the web of self-explanatory data', could be
considered, but I think just putting the terms 'web' and 'data' together
sets the tone well enough.
Also, a term like 'data web' is happily free of technicalities. Who knows,
perhaps even a corner stone like RDF might be replaced by something that is
considered better in the future?

Regards,
Frans

Op do 18 okt. 2018 om 09:53 schreef Anthony Moretti <
anthony.moretti@gmail.com>:

> Just wondering what people's thoughts are, rather than Semantic Web or
> Linked Data, what about Machine-Readable Web? It's simple and
> self-explanatory (a quality John mentioned), conveys its potential power
> (as Melvin brought up), and it ties together with machine learning.
>
> It's also accurate, I think:
>
> *"I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of
> analyzing all the data on the Web"*
> - Tim Berners-Lee, *Weaving the Web*, 1999
>
>
> Anthony
>
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 6:28 AM David Martin <david@martinwork.net> wrote:
>
>> 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> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>