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

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

From: Daniel Dardailler <danield@w3.org>
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 00:31:28 +0200
Message-ID: <445D23C0.7050308@w3.org>
To: Hans Teijgeler <hans.teijgeler@quicknet.nl>
CC: freew3@googlegroups.com, semantic-web@w3.org, redili@funredes.org, Linguistic-Domains@googlegroups.com

OK, it's world readable now.


Hans Teijgeler wrote:
> 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
>  
> 
Received on Saturday, 6 May 2006 22:31:53 UTC

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