[Xesam] [nepomuk-kde] An open-source project for desktop ontology maintenance

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On 8 мая 2009 00:09:18 Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen wrote:
> 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... 

Or ask for an exception ;) Yes, this does increase the barrier for 
participation.

> 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.

Maybe this is exactly what OSCAF participants preferred...

> 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...

...like the sourceforge project that Sebastian and Leo started already?

The point of this project is that repositories are open,  and ticket tracker 
is open which means that outsiders(as opposed to core maintainers) can 
participate easily.

> 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?

Several researchers + a number of companies paying money to sustain the 
foundation, showing an intent in implementing or using nepomuk tech and hoping 
to have their voice heard. Although in practice you have a much better chance 
of being heard if you provide useful suggestions as opposed to paying fees and 
being silent ;)

> >> 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).

Makes no sense to ignore them unless they are hostile to us which has not been 
the case.

> > 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 key.
>
> 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
> OSCAF community.

Yeah, If we manage to gain some momentum, other players(who are sane and not 
hostile) will pay attention regardless of cash flows :)

> 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).