[Xesam] [nepomuk-kde] An open-source project for desktop ontology maintenance
Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen
mikkel.kamstrup at gmail.com
Thu May 7 14:09:18 PDT 2009
2009/5/7 Evgeny Egorochkin <phreedom.stdin at gmail.com>:
> On 7 мая 2009 13:41:18 Roberto Guido wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Sebastian Faubel
>> <sebastian.faubel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, 2009-05-07 at 11:41 +0200, Sebastian Kügler wrote:
>> >> The OSCAF
>> >> foundation has been set up by NEPOMUK participants (KDE is among them)
>> >> and its goals align with those of KDE.
>> Oh, I missed this detail...
>> In previous mails (by Trueg, probably...) "neutrality" was one
>> argument. And OSCAF is not "neutral" at all, in a standardization
>> scenario. Or I misunderstood "neutrality"?
> OSCAF was supposed to be a place to do maintenance of nepomuk. So it's pretty
> neutral for any of participants and participant list is not closed as such. Or
> you whould clarify what kind of neutrality you expect?
What is a participant in OSCAF? As far as I can read on oscaf.org one
has to pay money to be a member... Also the project and governance
structure is heavily (like _heavily_) geared towards an industry setup
and not for a grass-roots, fast moving, do-it-our-selves, kinda
movement... Reading the pages it seems like an insurmountable task to
tackle in spare-time-only at least.
I must admit that reading the pages on oscaf.org (organization and
membership pages) leaves me a bit intimidated. And also leaves me
questionable whether simply spinning off a vigilante sourceforge
project will help collaboration... But I really am still puzzled about
this whole oscaf deal. It seems that some people on the lists are into
the inner workings behind this, perhaps they can enlighten everybody?
>> or opening Nepomuk to standardization (so: why depend on OSCAF?) ?
> Sorry I don't understand what you mean here. Standardization at what level/
> for what purpose/by whom etc?
I think the deal is that Roberto (very understandably) is not well
informed about OSCAF (neither am I). As far as I can see there really
is no question here... If we want to continue with Nepomuk we must
collaborate with OSCAF - and I think this is what the industry players
here want (notably Nokia and Mandriva, but this is pure guesswork).
> If Xesam doesn't want to become a fork of Nepomuk, we have to have some
> dialogue with OSCAF. If OSCAF doesn't want Xesam to be come a fork of Nepomuk,
> they have to somehow listen to Xesam. It's pretty simple -- dialogue is the
As I read this paragraph it means that it is paramount that we stay
under the Xesam umbrella to have a common, more powerful, voice in the
I urge anyone to go read the pages on the whole OSCAF setup on
oscaf.org before they voice their opinions here (be warned though if
you are buzzword allergic you should do some antihistamines before
going there :-D).
More information about the Xesam