Re: [Relevant for all] options for the RDF representation of ITS 2.0

Sorry,

I realized just after I sent the following that I misread your previous comment and I see what you meant. So ignore my last mail.

-Arle

On 2013 Aug 12, at 09:54 , Arle Lommel <arle.lommel@dfki.de> wrote:

> Hi Felix,
> 
> This does help. Just one note below: 
> 
>> We would need to make explicit that this approach of using NIF is specific to a specific version of NIF. And only we would maintain that version. Probably it is better to call it NIF+ITS than NIF, since we "own" it - not the NIF community. Of course we want to work closely with them to assure mutual agreement about this.
>> 
>>> It would seem we are creating, at the least, a fork in NIF (of between NIF and this NIFish stuff we would create), unless we have some sort of mutual maintenance agreement (but that would lead us right back to the problem we face now, would it not? that W3C does not want to be bound to external specifications with problematic IP).
>> 
>> We won't be bound to an external spec with this option, see above. 
> 
> I wasn't clear here. I meant that if we have a mutual maintenance agreement and NIF updates, then we have an obligation to update ITS 2.0 to match it (or to jointly develop it) when there will be few resources to do so. So the effect of a mutual maintenance agreement would be that we would smuggle in a dependence on NIF since it is far more likely that NIF would develop further than that our group (in whatever form) would take a lead on development. I didn't mean that our spec would have a direct dependence on an external spec. This is a more subtle dependence.
> 
> -Arle
> 
>

Received on Monday, 12 August 2013 07:56:11 UTC