Re: Ontolex as an ISO international standard

> On Nov 3, 2016, at 10:38 AM, Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> We have a lot of computers and phones, terabytes of disks, fancy displays: but we still cannot represent a graph with a tree (or wake me up when it will be possible ;-) ).

I think this will happen when we change the definitions. :D

As for ISO, I tend to agree with Thierry that it is a long process that yields relatively little advantage. Of the TC37 SC4 standards, 
 LMF and LAF are known and used (especially LMF), as is ISO-TimeML, but this is mainly due to the publicity given in presentations and implementation over the years, not because of ISO status.

Although many people may be involved in developing each ISO standard at some level, ultimately (at least in SC4) each is determined by a small group (sometimes one or two people), often not including all the people whose views should be represented. There is also the problem of the standard itself costing money, but as Thierry points out one can get around this.