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

RE: [freew3:26] Re: Linguistic Semantic Web gTLDs & meetings in Geneva

From: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 17:11:18 +0200
To: "'Daniel Dardailler'" <danield@w3.org>, <freew3@googlegroups.com>
Cc: <semantic-web@w3.org>, <redili@funredes.org>, <Linguistic-Domains@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <001001c6711f$5d87e5f0$6c7ba8c0@hans>

Daniel,

Not every reader of this forum can afford the W3C membership. Your link
http://www.w3.org/2005/09/dd-osd.html is accessible for members only, which
I consider a pity, also because of the effort you must have been putting in
it.

Regards,
Hans

____________________
Hans Teijgeler
ISO 15926 specialist
Netherlands
+31-72-509 2005
www.InfowebML.ws 
hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl  

-----Original Message-----
From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Daniel Dardailler
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 12:51
To: freew3@googlegroups.com
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org; redili@funredes.org;
Linguistic-Domains@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [freew3:26] Re: Linguistic Semantic Web gTLDs & meetings in
Geneva




> The W3C was not involved in the WGIG. ( http://www.wgig.org )

Not a lot of involment, true, but we managed to sent our input to WGIG in
time: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/04/dd-wsig.html
(also present on the wgig site)

> To me, it seems ridiculous to discuss ( if not decide)  about the 
> Internet and tbe Web without the W3C being involved.

The W3C, much like the IETF, is a provider of technologies, of
specifications, not a policy making body, so our involvement is often
limited to explaining what the tools _can_ do to help society (e.g. with
filtering harmfull content, with accessibility for people with disabilities,
with mobile access, etc) and not to force people to use them.

Take the analogy of cars and highways.

There are folks:
  - making the roads (telco).
  - selling gazoline and taking entrance toll (ISP)
  - making the cars (software vendors)
  - building service areas and highway restaurants (content providers)
  - explaining how to drive safely (gov)
  - making sure people drive that way (police)
  - making and placing road signs (ICANN, RIRs)

IETF and W3C's role is to tell everybody what 'unleaded 95' on a pump or
'195/65R15T' on a tire mean.

Not even to produce gas or tires, just to tell people what they can expect
if they see and use these conventions.

If you think about it, the large majority of users don't care (and don't
know) what these codes really mean, but they are really happy to be able to
drive across nations or even continents.

If someone comes around and pretend they are now making all the cars, or
that they own the pavement, and therefore that the gas or the tire
specifications are their own problems, well, they'll have to deal with the
car owners, the gas vendors, plus the police and the gov probably (if the
tires are too flat, or the gas too polluting :).


The other thing worth mentioning is that W3C is mostly going where its
membership tells it to go.

And the W3C staff is there to balance interest among players, but if x new
members from government agencies join the consortium, the resources we'll be
hiring with the revenue generated will probably be a reflection of those new
members wishes for progress on the Web, maybe more certification, more egov
effort, who knows ? but chances are that it'd be different than if x new
members from the content providers communities join.

For a recent pir chart of our membership, see: 
http://www.w3.org/2004/09/StatImages/categories.png

> Now, the W3C has become recently quite involved, as  you can see :
> http://www.intgovforum.org/
> Daniel Dardailler has done a magnificent job.
> 
> 
>>- We're not much in the light wrt UN/WSIS/IGF for 2 main reasons: the 
>>issues of open standards,
>>
> 
> it is hot, too hot to handle,
> as with  interoperability which is now in the Tunis texts thanks in 
> part to my own efforts.
> Much more could have been achieved if there had been more people with 
> technical knowledge and willing to fight.

The definition of Open Standards, the relation with Open Source, IPR, etc,
is certainly the one policy related area where we feel the most at ease to
give our input, since we've been doing just that for more than 10 years.

I'd started a draft of my own definition a while ago: 
http://www.w3.org/2005/09/dd-osd.html
I wish I had more time to participate in these discussions as well..

> 
> 
>>ipr, official recognition of non-gov blessed specification, etc, 
>>aren't very hot in these circles yet.
>> 
>>
> 
> Please check http://wsis-pct.org
> and all the fights of Free Software activists.

Sure, I will, but they probably should spend more time understanding the
details of the W3C Patent Policy, probably the first of its kind to have
succeeded in adopting RF terms as an institution, with support from both the
industry and the open source community.



Daniel Dardailler
  W3C Associate Chair
  Director W3C Europe
  World Wide Web Consortium
  http://www.w3.org/People/danield






--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 05-May-06
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 05-May-06
 
Received on Saturday, 6 May 2006 15:13:24 UTC

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