- From: Elena Montiel <emontiel@fi.upm.es>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2016 16:57:17 +0100
- To: Christian Chiarcos <chiarcos@informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>, public-ontolex@w3.org, Gil Francopoulo <gil.francopoulo@wanadoo.fr>
Dear all, If the copyright conditions be as Phlipp says, the model would keep being open and accessible to everyone, right? If that is so, we at UPM are in favor of this movement. However, being conscious of the problems that have been mentioned by all of you, we would like to make the following suggestion: What about standardizing only the core of the model in ISO and leaving the current and future modules (which have a more dynamic nature) to continue their development in the context of W3C community? Knowing that revision of standards in ISO is every 5 years, this would allow us to include the modules that have achieved a mature status by then. In summary, we think that this initiative could provide the model visibility and further adoption, while keeping flexibility for future extensions. let us know what you think! Best, Elena & Jorge & Lupe El 04/11/2016 a las 9:27, Christian Chiarcos escribió: >> 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 ;-) ). > > Amen to that. At least, it took people 20 years to acknowledge that > the overhead of forcing graphs into trees basically eats up most of > the benefits -- and obviously not everyone's convinced yet ;) > > Best, > Christian > >> >> Bonne journée, >> Gil >> >> Le 03/11/2016 à 06:53, Felix Sasaki a écrit : >>>> 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 >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > -- Elena Montiel-Ponsoda Ontology Engineering Group (OEG) Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial ETS de Ingenieros Informáticos Campus de Montegancedo s/n Boadilla del Monte-28660 Madrid, España www.oeg-upm.net Tel. (+34) 91 336 36 70 Fax (+34) 91 352 48 19
Received on Friday, 4 November 2016 15:57:47 UTC