- From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 06:53:58 +0100
- To: Thierry Declerck <declerck@dfki.de>
- Cc: public-ontolex@w3.org
> Am 02.11.2016 um 21:00 schrieb Thierry Declerck <declerck@dfki.de>: > > On 02.11.2016 20:25, Christian Chiarcos wrote: >> Dear all, >> >>> Hi Philipp, Paul, I fully support this move. >> >> Standardizing Ontoles is a logical and necessary next step, and most >> people would probably welcome it. The question is whether ISO is ideal for >> the purpose. >> >>> BTW, is ISO going to take the spec as it is, and propose a standard, or it will only be the starting point of the notoriously lengthy and tiring work of an ISO committee? > Dear Christian, Aldo, all, > > Myself I have been rather against this step, but feeling unsure about it. > At least I could contribute from Austria. > One aspect was also that DIN (the German ISO Branch) wanted to have money from participating organizations (and at the end selling the standards).... So that I stepped out from DIN. Same here. > I would prefer to continue the W3C path, but if not possible, then why not getting the ISO stamp. > There are ways to make sure that some ISO standards are not closed, using the informative parts vs the normative part. > In the informative part one could for example serialize the model (for exemplifying it) . And well not a big deal then to "reverse" a ttl or RDF/XML back to the ontology. If the aim to publish an ontology, FYI, there is a related W3C workshop coming up: https://www.w3.org/2016/11/sdsvoc/ - Felix > One thing I know is that a new ISO item for LMF is planned ( to be serialized it in TEI-XML, which I think is a non-sense, since TEI is hierarchical and purely semasiological. And LMF and Lemon support both semasiological and onomasiologcal approaches to the lexicon). > So: going for ISO-Lemon/ontolex might lead to interesting debates within the corresponding ISO committee :-) >> >> Well, we (or, at least, *someone*) probably cannot avoid the latter, do >> we? In any case, the ISO standardization suffers from insufficient >> transparency, also with respect to sharing and commenting drafts. I >> remember TC37/SC4 drafts should not have been disseminated at some point, >> and some server had to be switched off to prevent people from accessing >> them. If we can make sure (!) that the ISO standardization process does >> not hamper community involvement (at least at an informal level), I am >> inclined to support it. Even though it means that the development process >> will be partially taken from the hands of the current (open) community >> (that's also what ISO means). >> >> Does anyone has personal experience with the double ISO-W3C >> standardization processes? > No, but I found this: http://www.iso.org/iso/news.htm?refid=Ref1670 (no time to read it right now) > Cheers > > Thierry >> >> Best, >> Christian > > -- > Thierry Declerck, > Senior Consultant at DFKI GmbH, Language Technology Lab > Stuhlsatzenhausweg, 3 > D-66123 Saarbruecken > Phone: +49 681 / 857 75-53 58 > Fax: +49 681 / 857 75-53 38 > email: declerck@dfki.de > > ------------------------------------------------------------- > Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH > Firmensitz: Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern > > Geschaeftsfuehrung: > Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vorsitzender) > Dr. Walter Olthoff > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: > Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes > > Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313 > ------------------------------------------------------------- > >
Received on Thursday, 3 November 2016 05:54:11 UTC