W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > May 2006

Re: REDILI: Re: Linguistic Semantic Web gTLDs & meetings in Geneva

From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 16:42:30 +0200
Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20060505154947.01e94410@jefsey.com>
To: redili@funredes.org,Benjamin Nowack <bnowack@appmosphere.com>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org,danield@w3.org,freew3@googlegroups.com, redili@funredes.org,Linguistic-Domains@googlegroups.com

Dear Francis,
Thank you for your inputs and faith. But I read you on a non Internet 
but lingual diversity mailing list.

I must therefore say that transient ICANN, W3C, ISO, etc. issues are 
of no other interest here than to underline that people's languages 
come first, before network, computer, application constraints. There 
is certainly an added technical complexity for technologies suffering 
from a linguistic bias (the is the technical definition of using 
English as a pivotal language), like IETF and W3C. But we will never 
get a multilingual digital ecosystem if we do not address one way or 
another this "e-bias". This has been discussed enough at the IETF 
over a constraining document written by a UNICODE and a W3C authors 
(I acknowledge the last one said he did not represent a W3C position).

Rather than disputing this is issue where many say similar things in 
opposing ways, I think better to show practical solutions. This is 
our  JTC1/SC32/WG2 work based MDRS project under way. This is the 
semantic web. These are the Chinese names.

But, let us take the TLD issue. This is an Internet issue, not a user 
issue. TLDs are internet domains pasted from the "root names" we 
created in the late 70s, early 80s. Human languages came a few 
decades earlier :-). Further to an open request of ICANN (ICP-3 
document) we ran a two years long community test-bed on DNS related 
issues (dot-root) and the possible end of the root file. We came with 
a different approach. Instead of considering machine files, we 
considered users first. Among others we used the concept of ULD, user 
level domain (and what all what the concept may support of local, 
cultural, lingual, economic, etc. etc.). Then we considered the way 
we could support ULDs transparently to technologies, starting with 
the Internet, (because most of the other technologies (telephone, 
radio, Minitel, etc.) more or less do it already, this was the 
request of ICANN, and this was our existing tools).

We came with the conclusion that there is no _technical_ blocking, 
and different ways to support the ULD diversity we need. This is 
exactly what the Chinese names demonstrate. If you attend the Geneva 
meeting you will see that this is true in other language relational 
spaces as well. The DNS is a rigidified mapping between strings and 
numeric addresses: there are others systems, there are other ways to 
run the DNS. The only thing we want is to protect end to end 
interoperability. But is interoperability protected when 
interintelligibility is not provided? IETF will say yes, users will 
say no, applications will bug.

Another important issue is the WIPO policy. Techies are uncertain 
about TMs. Activists hate them. They are the DNS of the brainware. 
They permit users' brains to resolve objects and brands with the same 
name. The WIPO TLD policy (managing scarcity) will actually create 
them a real TM protection issue within the ULD diversity - and lead 
to user confusion. This might also be true with keywords (Koreans 
will explain what they do). But use a Chinese, or a Japanese keyword 
on your IE7 or Firefox. It will soon work the same as ASCII ones. 
This is why rather than paying too much attention to ICANN and to 
only consider IETF and W3C positions, one has to consider the whole 
digital ecosystem convergence and try to work out the proper 
solutions, before introducing the features ... we did not sell Jon 
Postel in 1984 (the DNS is documented by RFC 920 and ICANN claims its 
legitimacy from that RFC). But I am afraid they can eventually pop-up 
by themselves and grassroots consent. It would be nice but a probable mess.

This is the other Geneva issue. Culture oriented users to explain 
Commerce oriented techies what they really need and do if not supported.
jfc

http://jean-franÁois.jefsey.com (with cedilla). Works on IE7, 
Firefox, Opera, Safari, ... not on IE6.



At 15:20 05/05/2006, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
>Dear Benjamin
>>On 04.05.2006 21:26:51, Dr. Francis MUGUET wrote:
>>
>>>A first annoucement concerning the Semantic Web gTLDs proposal
>>>( http://semantic.cc )
>>>was posted on the semantic-web  list at W3C in October 2005.
>>>The comments that I received either on the list or privately
>>>encouraged to continue to work on this idea.
>>Sorry, but I don't think there was a single supportive response to 
>>your proposal, at least not on semantic-web. You may want to check 
>>again the docs that the sw community pointed you at back then.
>
>Lets go back to this past exchange on the SW list at W3C.
>I was expecting flames from many people that had been
>irritated by ICANN and
>ICANN behavior concerning the unecessary
>multiplication of gTLDs.
>There were some hasty remarks without rationale,
>that show the proposal was not read.
>I am not with ICANN...neither I work for ICANN...
>I hope those people can convey their anti-ICANN
>feelings to the W3C representative who is, at last,
>present in the WSIS debates.
>I share those concerns !!!
>
>The first two docs were given by
>Danny Ayers as the first answer on the list.
>
>New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful - Tim Berners-Lee
>http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/TLD
>
>Why Using TLDs for Filtering is Ineffective, Harmful, and Unnecessary
>- Ian Jacobs
>http://www.w3.org/2004/03/28-tld
>
>I consider this was a quick answer that included
>  pointers that were usefull to
>the debate and but the SWgTLD proposal
>has not been considered in detail.
>
>First, the paper written in 2000 by Ian jacobs concerns the
>".xxx" domain and it is irrelevant.
>Second, I agree with what Tim Berners-Lee wrote in 2004, within
>the ICANN context. The  SWgTLD proposal is quite distinct and
>conforted me to pursue this proposal, as I answered
>on the W3C list.
>
>Some people who took time to read the proposal and obviously
>understood the rationale suggested
>instead a whitelist or an organization, "The Semantic Web Site
>Certification Authority".
>I answered that this would turn to be more complicated
>to setup the SWgTLDs and would not benefit from the
>unique impetus of the WSIS.
>There was one constructive connection with the issue
>of interoperabilty and this was the third document
>pointed to me :
>http://www.w3.org/2004/12/rules-ws/paper/19
>Indeed, one aspect of the SWgTLDs proposal is
>about interoperability.
>May be, it could be sufficient that instead of
>one ontology that might be enforced
>in a specific  SWgTLD, we could envision a set of ontologies
>that are interoperable ( this interoperable set
>constitutes in fact an ontology ).
>
>Concerning one type of anwser that betrayed a
>funny laissez-faire :
>
>-------------------
> > forget tlds, uri prefixes, protocols and file suffixes. start 
> publishing rdf, people will find it. don't worry too much. life is good.
> >
>Yes, life is good:
>indeed : industrial polution, weather gone mad, junk food
>mass epidemia on the run, terrorims, wars ...
>a Soylent Green fate...( watch this old movie... )
>please add corruption of (meta)data, virus in the cyberspace...
>
>Well, concerning SW gTLDs, it is like an environmentalist project,
>making a new cyberenvironment, clean air,
>they are like Natural Parks of (meta)data.
>-------------------
>
>The EPA works and in the UN and elsewhere,
>and there is worldwide effort
>to save the environment.
>In any ecosystem there is an environment, and
>the cyberspace is no exception.
>It is about time to make this realization.
>
>It seemed to me that at this point, some SW people
>at last, begun to understand the true nature of
>the SWgTLDs under the "environmental"
>or "green" aspect.
>I got some private positive mails then, and,
>after some initial flak,
>this gave me encouragements to pursue this
>proposal.
>
>The Linguistic SWgTLDs present a fantastic
>oppurtunity for SWgTLDs.
>
>It is time to become mature, the time of
>the world wild web is gone...
>we need to build a clean cyber-environement,
>based on trust.
>
>ICANN has not pursued the goal of building trust,
>but of making money, by selling as many domain names
>as possible.
>
>Our goal is to build trust.
>
>Is life so good ?
>The W3C is on the defensive. IE7 is not going
>to abide by W3C standards, the SW is being derided
>as the "pedantic web", progress is slow...
>the SW community must not become a prisonner of it own
>delusion that the SW would come all by itself
>all over the world.
>Most people in governments and in the UN,
>don't even know what the SW is.
>Be realistic.
>
>How the SW would emerge if it emerges at all ?
>
>Since the W3C is now engaged in the WSIS process,
>I hope that the W3C must start to consider governance
>  options concerning the SW, its main agenda.
>( the browser war is not quoted much ).
>Rejecting any governance is not an option.
>Bridging the digital divide at all OSI levels
>requires good governance.
>
>The SWgTLDs is one SW governance proposal,
>that is just a draft,
>and it needs refinenments for sure,  lets people propose
>other governance schemes, and lets us discuss
>constructively, and
>try to advance without preconceived ideas.
>
>Best regards
>
>Francis
>
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Benjamin
>>--
>>Benjamin Nowack
>>Kruppstr. 100
>>45145 Essen, Germany
>>http://www.bnode.org/
>>
>>>In the last pages of the book "A Semantic Web Primer" (p 225) it 
>>>is written  : How one should deal with a multitude of ontologies 
>>>?. This problem ( known the ontology mapping problem ) is perhaps 
>>>the hardest problem to be solved. ../.. Possibly the first success 
>>>stories will not emerge from the open heterogeneous eovironment of 
>>>the WWW but rather in intranets of large organizations. In such 
>>>environments, central control may impose the use of standards and 
>>>technologies, and possibly the first real success will emerge.
>>>
>>>The SWgTLDs might be therefore the first real success for SW.
>>>
>>>In the mean time, a specific aplplication of SWgTLDs
>>>has been proposed
>>>the *Linguistic SWgTLDs - LSWgTLDs*
>>>http://www.semantic.cc/redili-en.html
>>>that might provide an additional impetus for the SW.
>>>Your comments are most welcome.
>>>
>>>Concerning Machine Translation,
>>>it is proposed to improve machine translation while making
>>>use of two or more versions in different languages
>>>of the same document.
>>>Of course Medata and identification of documents
>>>are a necessity to identify that a document is the
>>>version in another language of a the same document.
>>>
>>>Your kind attention is brought on the following events in Geneva
>>>of a major political importance :
>>>
>>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/multilingual/
>>>ITU and UNESCO Global Symposium  on Promoting the
>>>Multilingual Internet (  Geneva, 9-11 May 2006  )
>>>
>>>http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21663&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=
>>>201.html
>>>
>>>Consultation on WSIS Action Line C8 : Cultural Diversity and Identity,
>>>Linguistic Diversity and Local Content
>>>at Palais des Nations, Room XX, 10h00 - 18h00.
>>>( 12 May 2006, Geneva, Switzerland  )
>>>
>>>and for more general discussions.
>>>
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org
>>>New round of consultations on the convening of the IGF
>>>( 19 May 2006, Geneva )
>>>
>>>We have been very pleased to notice that for the first time,
>>>the W3C ( Daniel Dardailler ) is involved in the
>>>negotiations of the WSIS process.
>>>
>>>Concerning the IGF, please consult
>>>the site of the FreeW3 coalition
>>>http://www.freew3.org
>>>has been formed, because there was a need
>>>to formulate concrete proposals within
>>>Civil Society and to go beyond
>>>the incomplete analysis
>>>of the WGIG.
>>>The name FreeW3 has not been choosen to
>>>imply that the W3C is not free !,
>>>it was simply that other (.org)
>>>domain names such freeinternet.org
>>>were not available.
>>>
>>>Among the proposal
>>>SWgTLDs are listed.
>>>Of course, the FreeW3 coalition support
>>>the W3C effort toward the SW in general see
>>>http://www.w3.org/2006/03/w3c-igf.html
>>>
>>>Concerning the ways to attend those meetings, please
>>>contact "Viola Krebs" <viola@icvolunteers.org>
>>
>>>from REDILI in Geneva that might give you
>>
>>>more informations.
>>>
>>>While taking a cautious approach,
>>>linguistic SWgTLDs might constitute a breaktrough
>>>toward a practical multilinguism
>>>( except for poetry ) on the web.
>>>
>>>Best regards
>>>
>>>Francis Muguet
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------
>>>Version francaise établie à partir de Babelfish
>>>et corrigée manuellement
>>>
>>>Chers linguistes  et chercheurs
>>>des sciences de l'information  et/ou défenseurs distingués du 
>>>multilinguisme
>>>
>>>Une premiere annonce de la proposition des Sémantique gTLDs 
>>>(http://semantic.cc) a été postée sur la liste semantique-web du
>>>W3C en octobre 2005.
>>>Les commentaires que j'ai reçu sur la liste ou en privé m'ont 
>>>encouragé à continuer à travailler sur cette idée.
>>>
>>>Dans les dernières pages du livre "une introduction à toile 
>>>sémantique sémantique de Web" (p 225) on a écrit : Comment 
>>>devrait-on traiter une multitude d'ontologies ?. Ce problème (connu sous le
>>>nom du problème de la "carte ontologique") est peut-être le 
>>>problème le plus dur à être résolu.. probablement les 
>>>premièrs récits de succès n'émergeront pas de l'eovironment 
>>>h√©t√©rog√®ne ouvert du WWW mais plut√īt dans les intranets de 
>>>grands organismes. Dans de tels environnements, un
>>>control central peut imposer l'utilisation des normes et des 
>>>technologies, et probablement le premier vrai succès y émergera.
>>>
>>>Les SWgTLDs pourraient donc constituer un premier vrai succès du SW.
>>>
>>>Entre-temps, un application spécifique des SWgTLDs a été proposée
>>>*SWgTLDs linguistique - le LSWgTLDs * http://www.semantic.cc/redili-en.html
>>>qui pourrait fournir une impulsion additionnelle pour le SW.
>>>Vos commentaires sont les bienvenues.
>>>
>>>Pour ce qui concerne la traduction automatique, on
>>>propose d'améliorer la traduction automatique tout en se servant 
>>>de deux versions ou plus dans différentes langues du même 
>>>document. Naturellement, les métadonnées  et les identification 
>>>des documents sont une nécessité à certifier qu'un document est 
>>>la version en une autre langue du même document.
>>>
>>>Votre aimable attention est portée sur les événements suivants 
>>>à Genève d'importance politique majeure :
>>>
>>>http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/worksem/multilingual/ Colloque global 
>>>d'ITU et d'UNESCO sur favoriser l'Internet multilingue (Genève, 
>>>9-11 mai 2006) 
>>>http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=21663&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=
>>>201.html
>>>
>>>Consultation sur la ligne d'action C8 du SMSI  : Diversité et 
>>>identité culturelle, diversité linguistique  au Palais des 
>>>Nations , pièce XX, 10h00 - 18h00. (12 mai 2006, Genève, Suisse)
>>>
>>>et pour des discussions plus générales. 
>>>http://www.intgovforum.org Nouveau rond des consultations sur 
>>>s'assembler de l'IGF (19 mai 2006, Genève)
>>>
>>>Nous avons été très heureux de noter que pour la première 
>>>fois, le W3C (Daniel Dardailler) est impliqué dans les 
>>>négociations du processus de WSIS.
>>>
>>>Pour ce qui concerne l'IGF, consultez svp le site FreeW3 de la 
>>>coalition http://www.freew3.org qui a été formée,
>>>parce qu'il y avait un besoin de formuler des propositions 
>>>concrètes chez la société civile et d'aller au delà de 
>>>l'analyse inachevée du WGIG.
>>>
>>>La proposition des SWgTLDs est citée.
>>>
>>>Naturellement, La coalition FreeW3 appuie l'effort de W3C vers le 
>>>SW en général
>>>voir http://www.w3.org/2006/03/w3c-igf.html
>>>
>>>Pour ce qui concerne les manières d'assister à ces réunions, 
>>>entrez en contact avec svp Viola Krebs" de REDILI à Genève qui 
>>>pourrait vous fournir plus d'informations.
>>>
>>>Tout en adoptant une approche prudente, SWgTLDs linguistique 
>>>pourrait constituer un breaktrough vers un multilinguisme pratique 
>>>(except√© la po√©sie) sur l'encha√ģnement.
>>>
>>>Bien cordialement
>>>
>>>Francis Muguet
>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>------------------------------------------------------
>>>Francis F. MUGUET  Ph.D
>>>World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)
>>>muguet@wtis.org
>>>
>>>UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
>>>
>>>World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
>>>Civil Society Working Groups
>>>Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
>>>Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
>>>Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
>>>
>>>Director
>>>Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
>>>Knowledge Networks and Information Society
>>>ENSTA
>>>32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
>>>Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82
>>>muguet@ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
>>>
>>>MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
>>>Associate Publisher
>>>http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
>>>muguet@mdpi.org       muguet@mdpi.net
>>>
>>>------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>Francis F. MUGUET  Ph.D
>World Tour of the Information Society (WTIS)
>muguet@wtis.org
>
>UNMSP project : http://www.unmsp.org
>
>World Summit On the Information Society (WSIS)
>Civil Society Working Groups
>Scientific Information :  http://www.wsis-si.org  chair
>Patents & Copyrights   :  http://www.wsis-pct.org co-chair
>Financing Mechanismns  :  http://www.wsis-finance.org web
>
>Director
>Scientific Information Developement Laboratory :
>Knowledge Networks and Information Society
>ENSTA
>32 Blvd Victor 75739 PARIS cedex FRANCE
>Phone: (33)1 45 52 60 19  Fax: (33)1 45 52 52 82
>muguet@ensta.fr   http://www.ensta.fr/~muguet
>
>MDPI Foundation Open Access Journals
>Associate Publisher
>http://www.mdpi.org   http://www.mdpi.net
>muguet@mdpi.org       muguet@mdpi.net
>
>------------------------------------------------------
>
>
Received on Friday, 5 May 2006 14:47:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:51 UTC