[Xesam] The Ontology Open Source Project and OSCAF - 2nd try

Ivan Frade ivan.frade at gmail.com
Tue Jun 2 10:33:52 PDT 2009


Hi

>
> > This way:
> > - development is granted against any istitutional accident, such as
> failure
> > of the organization, take over by any industrial partner, change of
> > membership policies, attack by patents trolls, and... escape to Cayman
> > islands :-P - if any other entity (istitutional or not) wants to help in
> > promotion and development, it is granted may do it without regards about
> a
> > single organization internal decision but only accordly the whole
> community
>
> Maybe I did not formulate it clearly enough, but this is pretty much what I
> have in mind. OSCAF would not have any other power than the power of its
> members. And by that I mean the members that are also contributors to the
> ontology project. We join OSCAF to promote to the world that we unite to
> create an open standard for desktop ontologies. Sure, it could all be done
> without OSCAF, but why not take what's already there?


 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.

 "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...

 But still, it can be relaunched with a better scope, definition and
transparency.



> We (and by we I mean
> OSACF, I mean the developers, I mean us all, because in the end there is
> only
> us, developing the "normal" way and promoting through something "official"
> as
> OSCAF) only benefit from an official portal to the outside (corporate)
> world.


>> developers == OSCAF
False

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?


> It gives a stronger image.
> Imagine in a few months or years from now when our ontologies are rock
> solid.
> If at that point a big player will be interested in desktop ontologies
> having
> an frontend such as OSCAF will be a strong argument to use our ontologies
> instead of creating their own (maybe even closed) ones.
>

 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...".

 Regards,

Ivan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xesam/attachments/20090602/e9bd3518/attachment.html 


More information about the Xesam mailing list