W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-ssn@w3.org > July 2009

RE: SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 15-July-2009

From: Rodrigo Garcia Acevedo <rodrigo.garcia@fundacionctic.org>
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:41:08 +0200
Message-ID: <09700B613C4DD84FA9F2FEA5218828190641DA41@ayalga.fundacionctic.org>
To: <public-xg-ssn@w3.org>
Hi All.

I'm not an expert on licensing issues or W3C processes, but as far as I know, W3C standards follow the W3C Patent Policy [1] in order to ensure that Recommendations can be implemented on a Royalty-Free basis. I don't know whether this applies to Incubator Groups' works, but maybe it is worth checking this issue before choosing the license for the ontology.

Does anybody know something about this matter?

[1] http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy/

Kind regards,

-----Mensaje original-----
De: public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org [mailto:public-xg-ssn-request@w3.org] En nombre de Raúl García Castro
Enviado el: viernes, 17 de julio de 2009 8:28
Para: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
CC: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
Asunto: Re: SSN-XG Meeting Minutes 15-July-2009

On 17/7/09 Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au wrote:
> Hi all,
> Great discussion! It's almost weekend, so just a few remarks  ;-) 
> I think that we can start off with using sourceforge or similar as 
> repository for our files that everyone has access to (as a "quick" 
> solution, considering the time we have left). However, to some extend 
> I do share Kerry's concern here... Maybe (until we have that license 
> issue figured out) we should even consider a non-public space 
> (probably close enough to have it at SF and not distribute the link  
> ;-) ?

But, then, maybe we don't even need sorceforge right now and we can 
manage putting the files in the wiki.
We can worry about sourceforge when we plan to release a first version 
of the ontology.

> In the meantime, we can look for a repository-based solution.
> I very much prefer the URL 'http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/ssn/' 
> for the ontology; I have CVS access to that space (that's how W3C 
> handles it; this way, we get at least that ascii-type of versioning 
> for the 'releases'), so that I'd be happy to do the whole release 
> management-stuff Krzysztof was talking about.

I totally agree in having that URL for the ontology.

it is the approach followed for other ontologies developed in the W3C, 
such as the Delivery Context ontology:
or the same RDF(S) and OWL specifications:

Kind regards,


Dr. Raúl García Castro

Ontology Engineering Group (http://www.oeg-upm.net/)
Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
Campus de Montegancedo, s/n - Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
Phone: +34 91 336 36 70 - Fax: +34 91 352 48 19
Received on Friday, 17 July 2009 07:42:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:03:15 UTC