Hi all <div class="gmail_quote">2009/5/5 Urho Konttori <<a href="mailto:urho.konttori@nokia.com">urho.konttori@nokia.com</a>> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im"> >> I mentioned in my blog that we already created the OSCAF sourceforge >> project[2]. Now I don't really care how we name the project. Maybe OSCAF is >> not the best name, maybe something very simple like "desktop-ontologies" would >> > > I would say that we should reuse one of Xesam or Nepomuk for this. Why > add one more buzz-word to an already crowded namespace? :) Besides, it > makes it easier to associate the ontology with the project, then. > </div>I would definitely like to keep Nepomuk as the ontology name. It is already a name that has a lot of backing from high valu players : <a href="http://nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main1/Participants" target="_blank">http://nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org/xwiki/bin/view/Main1/Participants</a> </blockquote><div class="im"> I would keep Nepomuk as ontology name, and use XESAM as project for the ontology mainteinance. XESAM will also include more things (e.g. client API, query language,...) Xesam based on nepomuk ontologies can be the XESAM 2.0 spec. > >> be better. In any case I think using sourceforce (I prefer it since I already >> have 3 projects there and was always happy with it) or something similar is a >> good idea. We then don't need to spend time on setting up task tracking >> systems or mailing lists. We just use what is there. >> > > _If_ we agree to keep this effort under the head of Nepomuk or Xesam, > I guess we can just reuse the existing infrastructure? > I think it is better to use the XESAM infrastructure than creating new projects. Ivan </div></div>