W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-oilgaschem@w3.org > December 2011

RE: Charter Development

From: Jennifer Sampson <JENSAM@statoil.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2011 16:36:16 +0100
To: Roger Cutler <rogercutler@gmail.com>, "public-oilgaschem@w3.org" <public-oilgaschem@w3.org>
Message-ID: <2C1F8CCA78C1D0409C0A08729F3C057A1A4342CD48@ST-EXCL27.statoil.net>
Hi,

I think the use of the phrase "Semantic Web technologies" is fine in the charter. I liked the wording from the W3C Semantic Web Activity page here:
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/
"The Semantic Web provides a common framework that allows data to be shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries..."

I remember seeing a presentation that contrasts Semantic Web and Semantic Technology Solutions, but I would have to find it.

Best regards,
Jennifer

From: Roger Cutler [mailto:rogercutler@gmail.com]
Sent: 2. desember 2011 18:15
To: public-oilgaschem@w3.org
Subject: Charter Development

I've been putting together a charter at http://www.w3.org/community/oilgaschem/wiki/Oil,_Gas_and_Chemicals_Business_Group_Charter.  So far it's just a shell, and I'm concentrating mostly on the boilerplate and the process parts of it.  This is not entirely trivial because since we're the first business group there's no "go by".  There have been some email discussions off-line about logistics, but recently these have drifted a bit into content issues, which I think are more properly discussed in this email group.  For future reference and possible discussion, a couple of disagreements (mild disagreements -- I don't think that there are any big issues here) were as follows:

 1.  Whether to use the phrase "Semantic Web technology", "semantic technology" or both.  I opted for Semantic Web technology, mostly because that's the term used in the W3C and that's the context of this group.  I am strongly opposed to using both because I think that the distinction is not widely or consistently understood, and I think rat-holing into trying to parse those nuances would be a constant waste of time.
 2.  Whether we should mention joint ventures in the mission statement.  I kept it in because I think joint ventures are a strong driver for standards efforts in the industry, but I restructured the verbiage a bit with at lease the intention of responding to the concern.  I should emphasize, however, that what I'm putting in for things like mission statement, scope and so on are intended very much as first cuts and placeholders.



-------------------------------------------------------------------
The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the
information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
this message.
Thank you
Received on Monday, 5 December 2011 15:37:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 5 December 2011 15:37:01 GMT