Re: Ontolex as an ISO international standard

G'day,

I am not sure that the reward for making things an ISO standard is worth
the effort.   I have never needed something to be blessed by the ISO, or
find that it made any difference (except that the standard is usually
harder to access).

I wouldn't stop anyone who wants to do it, but I wouldn't put in any effort
myself.


On Fri, Nov 4, 2016 at 8:57 AM, Elena Montiel <emontiel@fi.upm.es> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>


-- 
Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/>
Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
Nanyang Technological University