Re: Charter Development

Incorporated into mission statement.

On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Jennifer Sampson <JENSAM@statoil.com> wrote:

>  Hi,****
>
> ** **
>
> I think the use of the phrase “Semantic Web technologies” is fine in the
> charter. I liked the wording from the W3C Semantic Web Activity page here:
> ****
>
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/****
>
> “The Semantic Web provides a common framework that allows data to be
> shared and reused across application, enterprise, and community boundaries…”
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> I remember seeing a presentation that contrasts Semantic Web and Semantic
> Technology Solutions, but I would have to find it.****
>
> ** **
>
> Best regards,****
>
> Jennifer****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Roger Cutler [mailto:rogercutler@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* 2. desember 2011 18:15
> *To:* public-oilgaschem@w3.org
> *Subject:* Charter Development****
>
> ** **
>
> I've been putting together a charter at
> http://www.w3.org/community/oilgaschem/wiki/Oil,_Gas_and_Chemicals_Business_Group_Charter.
> So far it's just a shell, and I'm concentrating mostly on the boilerplate
> and the process parts of it.  This is not entirely trivial because since
> we're the first business group there's no "go by".  There have been some
> email discussions off-line about logistics, but recently these have drifted
> a bit into content issues, which I think are more properly discussed in
> this email group.  For future reference and possible discussion, a couple
> of disagreements (mild disagreements -- I don't think that there are any
> big issues here) were as follows:****
>
>    1. Whether to use the phrase "Semantic Web technology", "semantic
>    technology" or both.  I opted for Semantic Web technology, mostly because
>    that's the term used in the W3C and that's the context of this group.  I am
>    strongly opposed to using both because I think that the distinction is not
>    widely or consistently understood, and I think rat-holing into trying to
>    parse those nuances would be a constant waste of time.****
>    2. Whether we should mention joint ventures in the mission statement.
>    I kept it in because I think joint ventures are a strong driver for
>    standards efforts in the industry, but I restructured the verbiage a bit
>    with at lease the intention of responding to the concern.  I should
>    emphasize, however, that what I'm putting in for things like mission
>    statement, scope and so on are intended very much as first cuts and
>    placeholders.****
>
> ** **
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> The information contained in this message may be CONFIDENTIAL and is
> intended for the addressee only. Any unauthorised use, dissemination of the
> information or copying of this message is prohibited. If you are not the
> addressee, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail and delete
> this message.
> Thank you
>