- From: John Graybeal <jbgraybeal@mindspring.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 19:23:48 -0800
- To: public-xg-ssn@w3.org
- Message-Id: <E9B7A8D7-2C34-4575-A437-586C6058FFDF@mindspring.com>
Holger, all, First of all, my complements to whoever took the minutes. They were wonderful, I had a great sense of your discussion. And, my apologies for not being there, in my new job it seems I am not so much in control of my schedule as I would like. It is my intent to reconnect, at least in reviewing and adding value from an offline position. I would like to introduce a topic to discuss at the next appropriate meeting (you may have discussed it a bit today). The MMI device ontology has a fair amount of material that is complementary, and maybe some material that is contradictory, with the W3C device ontology. I think there is a lot to be said for pushing hard to align the two as fully as possible. There are multiple approaches to alignment (one ontology, one master ontology with two extensions, two overlapping and non-conflicting ontologies, two entirely separate ontologies), and while I have a bias about which is most desirable, I don't have a firm opinion. I do see a lot of advantages to a clear alignment, which I can list at the meeting, or in the email thread. If you haven't already covered this topic, can it be added? While neither of the next two weeks works great for me, I will make time to attend as soon as it is on the agenda. And of course am happy to provide more information via the list. Thanks, John On Dec 2, 2009, at 14:20, <Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au> <Holger.Neuhaus@csiro.au > wrote: > Hi all, > > Thank you for attending the telephone conference today. > > The minutes are available at: http://www.w3.org/2009/12/02-ssn-minutes.html >
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 03:24:31 UTC