Re: transition www-rdf-logic to public-owl-dev?

Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> 
> 
> I personally find the overlaps between the lists difficult.
> I would prefer semantic-web@w3.org for everything that is not directly 
> WG related, i.e. a single IG list.

That sounds good to me.

> Alternatively an upgrade to the mail-server so that cross-posts get sent 
> to everyone in all named lists once; 

and also +1 (at least) to that.

- David

and to initiate a culture of
> cross-posting, (something that I tend to avoid, with the risk that some 
> people subscribed to rdf-logic miss posts that I would like them to see, 
> but which seemed more appropriate to rdf-interest, and vice-versa)
> 
> I guess a list to talk specifically about OWL, and a list specifically 
> to talk about the new DAWG QL might make sense. The current divide 
> between rdf-interest and rdf-logic doesn't make sense to me for much of 
> the foundational work, which requires discussion from both communities, 
> but I can see that there are many people in rdf-interest who might find 
> some of the discussion in rdf-logic off-putting and conversely.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan Brickley wrote:
> 
>>
>> Dan Connolly wrote:
>>
>>> Jim H. has been workin on an OWL homepage...
>>>   http://www.w3.org/2004/OWL/
>>>
>>> and it got me thinking about creating a public-owl-dev
>>> mailing list, ala xmlschema-dev
>>>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlschema-dev/
>>>
>>> We still have www-rdf-rules around for public
>>> discussion of rules and topics near the RDF Data Access WG.
>>>
>>> If we make a public-owl-dev list, is www-rdf-logic
>>> still worth keeping?
>>
>>
>>
>> If we do that, I'd rather do it as part of a more comprehensive fixup 
>> of our RDF/SW mailing lists. Generally, I'd be wary of this "don't 
>> solve this small problem until we address this possibly-unaddressable 
>> larger problem", but with mailing lists, their individual chararacter 
>> and role is in large part carved out through contrast with their 
>> neighbours.
>>
>> There are a number of lists associated with the Semantic Web Interest 
>> Group. See http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/interest/ -> 
>> http://www.w3.org/2003/12/swa/swig-charter.html#meetings  for those 
>> called out during the last rechartering: www-rdf-logic, 
>> www-rdf-calendar,  www-rdf-rules, public-semweb-lifesci,  www-annotation.
>>
>> The biggest problem I've seen is www-rdf-rules and www-rdf-logic. 
>> Former: "This mailing list is intented for the discussion of queries 
>> and rules for RDF data. We invite practical discussions with the goal 
>> of coordination and shared understanding of other implementations."
>> Latter: "The www-rdf-logic list provides a forum for technical 
>> discussion concerning the design of logic-based languages for use on 
>> the Web.". I think discussion is split between these two pretty 
>> arbitrarily, based on historical accident of who subscribed to which 
>> list when.
>>
>> The www-rdf-rules list is sort of a public-rdf-dawg-dev ish in scope, 
>> now that we have a working group there. We don't have an explicit 
>> "-dev" life-after-REC list for the RDFCore work either, yet, although 
>> wwww-rdf-comments often serves that purpose (but wasn't meant for 
>> discussion). We have www-rdf-interest as the 'home' list of an 
>> interest group that has just been renamed from 'RDF IG' to 'Semantic 
>> Web IG'. We also have, unused, a couple of possibly-useful lists that 
>> were created and then held back from deployment: 'www-rdf-specs', and 
>> 'semantic-web'. I lean towards promoting use of semantic-web@w3.org as 
>> a home list for the SW IG, so that we are more inclusive of the OWL 
>> community.
>>
>>
>> I agree that having an OWL-dev list, a www-rdf-rules, and a
>> www-rdf-logic is a bit crowded. Initially I'd encourage www-rdf-logic 
>> to take on that role, but in a way that keeps OWL explicitly part of 
>> the broader Semantic Web effort (RDF, Query, possible Rules, ...) 
>> rather than living in its own world. If the choice of public-owl-dev 
>> over www-rdf-logic is purely one of naming, I'd like to make it in the 
>> same decision as switching to use of semantic-web over www-rdf-rules 
>> as the IG's main list.
>>
>> Is there anything that you'd hope to happen on public-owl-dev that 
>> couldn't happen on www-rdf-logic given its current charter / content?
>> Is there anything happening here that is particularly at odds with an 
>> 'OWL-dev' role?
>>
>> Dan
>>
>

Received on Friday, 7 May 2004 14:29:54 UTC