- From: Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 18:38:39 +0100
- To: public-ontolex@w3.org
Hi all, I agree that the ISO process is lengthy and time consuming (I worked on LMF during 5 years) but there are some positive points: * to have the opportunity to meet a lot of people, * to confront the specification to different theoretical views, languages and intended uses. Concerning the technical remark coming from Thierry, I totally agree with him: it is a complete non-sense for me also to represent data which are both semasiological and onomasiological like Lemon and LMF following a hierarchical schema like TEI-XML. I was also surprised when I saw the title of this ISO project. Every student in computer science knows that: we cannot represent a graph with a tree. It's not more complex that that. We have a lot of computers and phones, terabytes of disks, fancy displays: but we still cannot represent a graph with a tree (or wake me up when it will be possible ;-) ). Bonne journée, Gil Le 03/11/2016 à 06:53, Felix Sasaki a écrit : >> Am 02.11.2016 um 21:00 schrieb Thierry Declerck <declerck@dfki.de>: >> >> On 02.11.2016 20:25, Christian Chiarcos wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>>> Hi Philipp, Paul, I fully support this move. >>> Standardizing Ontoles is a logical and necessary next step, and most >>> people would probably welcome it. The question is whether ISO is ideal for >>> the purpose. >>> >>>> BTW, is ISO going to take the spec as it is, and propose a standard, or it will only be the starting point of the notoriously lengthy and tiring work of an ISO committee? >> Dear Christian, Aldo, all, >> >> Myself I have been rather against this step, but feeling unsure about it. >> At least I could contribute from Austria. >> One aspect was also that DIN (the German ISO Branch) wanted to have money from participating organizations (and at the end selling the standards).... So that I stepped out from DIN. > Same here. > >> I would prefer to continue the W3C path, but if not possible, then why not getting the ISO stamp. >> There are ways to make sure that some ISO standards are not closed, using the informative parts vs the normative part. >> In the informative part one could for example serialize the model (for exemplifying it) . And well not a big deal then to "reverse" a ttl or RDF/XML back to the ontology. > If the aim to publish an ontology, FYI, there is a related W3C workshop coming up: > > https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ > > - Felix > >> One thing I know is that a new ISO item for LMF is planned ( to be serialized it in TEI-XML, which I think is a non-sense, since TEI is hierarchical and purely semasiological. And LMF and Lemon support both semasiological and onomasiologcal approaches to the lexicon). >> So: going for ISO-Lemon/ontolex might lead to interesting debates within the corresponding ISO committee :-) >>> Well, we (or, at least, *someone*) probably cannot avoid the latter, do >>> we? In any case, the ISO standardization suffers from insufficient >>> transparency, also with respect to sharing and commenting drafts. I >>> remember TC37/SC4 drafts should not have been disseminated at some point, >>> and some server had to be switched off to prevent people from accessing >>> them. If we can make sure (!) that the ISO standardization process does >>> not hamper community involvement (at least at an informal level), I am >>> inclined to support it. Even though it means that the development process >>> will be partially taken from the hands of the current (open) community >>> (that's also what ISO means). >>> >>> Does anyone has personal experience with the double ISO-W3C >>> standardization processes? >> No, but I found this: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1670 (no time to read it right now) >> Cheers >> >> Thierry >>> Best, >>> Christian >> -- >> Thierry Declerck, >> Senior Consultant at DFKI GmbH, Language Technology Lab >> Stuhlsatzenhausweg, 3 >> D-66123 Saarbruecken >> Phone: +49 681 / 857 75-53 58 >> Fax: +49 681 / 857 75-53 38 >> email: declerck@dfki.de >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH >> Firmensitz: Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern >> >> Geschaeftsfuehrung: >> Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) >> Dr. Walter Olthoff >> >> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: >> Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes >> >> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 >> ------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 17:39:21 UTC