- From: Ralph R. Swick <swick@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 May 2009 12:27:30 -0400
- To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Cc: Renato Iannella <renato@nicta.com.au>,Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>,martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>,www-archive@w3.org
At 12:22 PM 5/11/2009 +0200, Peter Mika wrote: >... I wouldn't mind seeing the W3C to become the organization >where ontologies are developed in a collaborative fashion >and hosted in a long term, I'd like W3C to be *one of* the organizations that do this. That is, I wouldn't advocate for an exclusive; if an established community already has a forum for working on its vocabulary with appropriate (to the context) persistence promises around the namespace name(s) then I wouldn't want to give the impression that their independent work is somehow a lesser part of the Semantic Web. >but as you say that requires a process, and in general a certain level of commitment. Both are achievable. Some of our older ideas required incremental funding that didn't materialize in sufficient magnitude. >Practically, I would be happy with cleaning up the existing notes Which is (socially) simpler if the previous authors concur with the plan for producing an update. >and putting in place some barriers for entry so that people can >not easily submit any half-baked ontology as a member submission >or note of some sort. Member Submissions come in many flavors. The staff has an opportunity -- through the Staff Comment -- to refer readers of a Member Submission to alternate materials. I, too, would be interested in having W3C provide a mechanism that lets vocabulary proposals grow into community-supported activities. Even half-baked proposals :)
Received on Monday, 11 May 2009 16:27:55 UTC