Hi<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><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">><br>
> This way:<br>
> - development is granted against any istitutional accident, such as failure<br>
> of the organization, take over by any industrial partner, change of<br>
> membership policies, attack by patents trolls, and... escape to Cayman<br>
> islands :-P - if any other entity (istitutional or not) wants to help in<br>
> promotion and development, it is granted may do it without regards about a<br>
> single organization internal decision but only accordly the whole community<br>
<br>
</div>Maybe I did not formulate it clearly enough, but this is pretty much what I<br>
have in mind. OSCAF would not have any other power than the power of its<br>
members. And by that I mean the members that are also contributors to the<br>
ontology project. We join OSCAF to promote to the world that we unite to<br>
create an open standard for desktop ontologies. Sure, it could all be done<br>
without OSCAF, but why not take what's already there? </blockquote><div><br> As i proposed just few minutes ago, split the OSCAF promotion/standarization work from the development part. Otherwise it will slow down all enthusiastic projects out there.<br>
<br> "What is already there". and what is there? A foundation with no much movement, no list of memberships, huge fees for uncertain porpoises and benefits... <br><br> But still, it can be relaunched with a better scope, definition and transparency.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">We (and by we I mean<br>
OSACF, I mean the developers, I mean us all, because in the end there is only<br>
us, developing the "normal" way and promoting through something "official" as<br>
OSCAF) only benefit from an official portal to the outside (corporate) world.</blockquote><div><br>>> developers == OSCAF<br>False<br><br>The companies really interested to use an standard will probably check: what is the people using out there? How many different projects are using it? Who developed it? <br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>
It gives a stronger image.<br>
Imagine in a few months or years from now when our ontologies are rock solid.<br>
If at that point a big player will be interested in desktop ontologies having<br>
an frontend such as OSCAF will be a strong argument to use our ontologies<br>
instead of creating their own (maybe even closed) ones.<br>
</blockquote><div><br> The argument should be: "hey, look the huge amount of work these people did. It must be good, because it works in this and that and that projects. We cannot do this again from scratch...". <br>
<br> Regards,<br><br>Ivan<br></div></div>