Re: TMAP : Action : Draft message to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3

stylistically this is more formal than I would have made it, but that's no 
big deal ...

I am not entirely comfortable with the word 'endorsed' used twice - I am 
not at all sure that any of our WG Notes constitute endorsement by the W3C. 
My understanding is that the Rec track process is for that.

Suggest the following changes:

1) delete sentence

[[
But this work has never been endorsed by any of relevant standard 
organizations (W3C and ISO).
]]

(Or alternatively replace 'endorsed' by 'followed through')


2) modify
[[
  endorsed by both W3C and ISO.
]]
to
[[
   potentially jointly published by both W3C and ISO.
]]


Jeremy


Bernard Vatant wrote:

> 
> As decided during Cannes meeting, below is a draft message proposal to be
> sent by SWBPD WG to the standard body in charge of Topic Maps standard,
> namely ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3.
> See http://www.isotopicmaps.org for more information about this WG.
> 
> The message is specific, but my view is that it could be used as a
> 'template' for dealing with other groups, organizations or communities,
> when we think their work is relevant to the SW, and would like to trigger a
> process of collaboration.
> 
> 
> <draftMessage>
> 
>>From :
> 	whoever@w3.org
> 	on behalf of W3C Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment WG
> 
> To : ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3
> 	James David Mason, Chair	mxm@y12.doe.gov
> 	Steve Pepper, Convenor  	pepper@ontopia.net
> 
> Gentlemen
> 
> The new W3C Working Group 'Semantic Web Best Practices and Deployment' [1]
> has put Topic Maps on the list of (many) legacy and technologies that it
> would like to be made
> interoperable with the Semantic Web infrastructure and languages.
> For those technologies, the SWBPD WG purpose is to identify and promote
> best practices for interoperability.
> The intended process needs to involve participation of qualified experts,
> assuming organizations and communities of users have expressed interest in
> the Semantic Web initiative.
> 
> Relevant preliminary work has been made in recent years in the TM
> community, including various proposals for TM-RDF mapping. But this work
> has never been endorsed by any of relevant standard organizations (W3C and
> ISO).
> 
> This message is intended to trigger a process in this direction, provided
> you agree on :
> 
> - A common declaration of interest in collaboration at the organizational
> level, respectively W3C SWBPD and ISO/IEC JTC1/SC34/WG3. ( Consider this
> declaration is made from our side through the present message. )
> 
> - Definition of a task force, including people proposed by ISO/IEC
> JTC1/SC34/WG3 as invited experts.
> This task force would have as first objective to deliver a Technical Note
> on best practices for TM-SW interoperability, endorsed by both W3C and ISO.
> 
> We are looking forward for a positive feedback.
> 
> Regards
> 
> ...
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/
> 
> </draftMessage>
> 
> 
> Remarks:
> 
> - A TM-RDF workshop mentioned by DanBri during Cannes meeting
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/2004-tmrdf/
> could it be used as a place to kick-off this process ?
> 
> - The most relevant expert in RDF-TM interoperability is AFAIK Lars Marius
> Garshol
> See : "Living with topic maps and RDF"
> http://www.ontopia.net/topicmaps/materials/tmrdf.html
> 
> - Some personal contribution can be found in the paper
> "Ontology-driven topic maps" I will present next month at XML Europe
> http://www.idealliance.org/europe/04/call/xmlpapers/03-03-03.91/.03-03-03.h
> tml
> 
> Thanks for your attention
> 
> Bernard Vatant
> Senior Consultant
> Knowledge Engineering
> Mondeca - www.mondeca.com
> bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 11 March 2004 06:51:44 UTC