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

[Evgeny Egorochkin]

On 8 мая 2009 00:39:27 Roberto Guido wrote:
> On Thursday 07 May 2009 21:52:38 you wrote:
> > Or you whould clarify what kind of neutrality you expect?
>
> "Community-driven" is a detailed enough definition :-) ?

Not at all. OSCAF is a community too, you simply don't like the way it's 
structured ;)

> More in general: OSCAF is a formal organization (= burocracy. Who maintains
> the balance to present at the end of the fiscal year?),

KDE, GNOME etc are too formal organizations

> probably due legal responsability only certain kind of members would have 
write access to repositories and published contents
What kind of responsibility? KDE, GNOME again. Again only some people have 
write access to the repositories.

> (so: how much have I or anyone else to
> pay to candidate?), 

Nothing? http://www.oscaf.org/node/12 take a look at Invited Expert option ;)

> from this page -> http://www.oscaf.org/organisation
> seems economically dependant from at least one company
> (http://www.deri.ie/), and by law one director *must* by resident in
> Ireland.

I guess you know what my reply here will be :)

> I'm currently giving a look at the Companies Act which regulates
> the "Public Company Limited by Guarantee", just to begin I hope to heavy
> misunderstood article 163 imposing a "Christian name" for every director...

If so, it sucks to incorporate in Ireland :(

> > Sorry I don't understand what you mean here. Standardization at what
> > level/ for what purpose/by whom etc?
>
> At this stage: "standardization" = "acceptable by everyone".

Does everyone include OSCAF members?  If so, it makes sense to try getting 
them on our side.

> You say below this kind of technology is "in infancy", official
> standardization (ISO?) may actually be a little pretentious.

You can call it strategic planning. And I didn't really imply ISO. There are 
other orgs like W3C which are just as credible (if not more ;)

> > There's no specific reason for OSCAF existence other than there are a
> > significant number of companies/organizations which decided to
> > participate in nepomuk effort and they do it though OSCAF.
>
> Which "companies/organizations"?
> In which way those "companies/organizations" would "partecipate"?
> Paying cash for what kind of activities?
> And requiring what as return?

I'm not in a position to answer this with 100% certainity of course but my 
guess is that the idea is that corporations get to support the org 
financially, while physical persons get a free ride...

> > 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.
>
> Oh, well... A cold war, where both players needs diplomatic collaboration
> by the other to avoid self-destruction... It isn't so exciting...

War? Already? Due diligence is nice, but don't you think you're going a bit 
overboard here?

My point is that if you want to be heard then get to work dammit!

Making FOSS desktop the first semantic desktop is just exactly what you need 
to be heard and treated with respect by everyone OSCAF or not. Consolidation 
of effors such as what happened to Xesam quite recently can go a long way to 
improve the efficiency of this process.

Consolidation with OSCAF will further improve strategic perspectives. The more 
effort you actually dedicate to develop the semantic desktop, the more useful 
proposals and suggestions you get to provide. If OSCAF is involved early and 
eg aren't very active, they basically get to use YOUR proposals. And yes, they 
do actually use Nepomuk spec.

Getting FOSS desktops and enterprise setups to use the same spec is one step 
short of world domination scenario ;)

pffffffff

-- Evgeny