[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [xdi] Membership #s and costs
Bill, All, The question of representing an Association or other sort of non-profit comes up frequently, so it has its own FAQ http://www.oasis-open.org/join/membership_faq.php#a19 That said, the premise of OASIS, and most other similar organization of which I am aware is that the actual "member" is the organization (describing companies, gov't agencies, universities and the range of non-profits that exist as legal entities). The people in the committees are technically representatives of the member organization. OASIS, again as is the norm, allows employees to act as member representatives. This parallels most people's working relationships and the real world. We added the non-profit category (now specifically Academic, Government and Association) membership some years ago because we needed to better enable their low cost participation, to ensure they could represent their constituency in OASIS. But, we know that non-profits often do not have employees, or if they do, they are not suitable participants in OASIS. (I dare say that I, as an OASIS employee, am not qualified to engage with most OASIS TCs.) But we make an accommodation there. The member organization can designate 1 or 2 representatives, if they do not have employees. The designation process enables us to make it clear for all parties that the representative is representing the Association, not their own company interests - and IP. We chose the limit of 2 representatives because there were not more than 2 representatives in place for any of our existing non-profit members, because that matched the general OASIS business model and enabled them to represent their constituency effectively. Hope that helps, Scott McGrath Senior Director of Member Services Tel +1 978-667-5115 x202 Fax +1 978-667-5114 scott.mcgrath@oasis-open.org New to OASIS? Take a 3-minute tour: http://www.oasis-open.org/home/tour.php >-----Original Message----- >From: Mary McRae [mailto:marypmcrae@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Mary McRae >Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 12:40 PM >To: 'Barnhill, William [USA]'; 'Drummond Reed'; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org; >'Scott McGrath' >Subject: RE: [xdi] Membership #s and costs > >Hi Bill, > > I just didn't want anyone to pose the possibility that *members* of an >association would be allowed to join under that membership. I think we >should be >open and honest with potential members as to the options available to them. >The >easiest response is to direct anyone with interest to Scott and he can >explain >the various categories and where they would fit. > > See you next week! > >All the best, > >Mary > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Barnhill, William [USA] [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 11:08 AM >> To: mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org; Drummond Reed; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org; >> Scott McGrath >> Subject: RE: [xdi] Membership #s and costs >> >> >> Hi Mary, >> >> Thank's for pointing that out. I realize TAB members don't speak for >OASIS >> and if anyone garnered the misconception that I was speaking for OASIS >they >> should disabuse themselves of that notion, as it's wrong. >> >> This is why I used phrases like "My guess is", "If you can get OASIS to >> accept", "Once we get to a good point (should be quickly) we can talk to >> Jamie and Eduardo". My goal was to encourage the OpenID Foundation to >not >> dismiss out of hand the idea of joining but for them to engage OASIS >> personnel to get answers and possibly to work out an agreement (not >saying >> that this is possible, just that they should try). This was in response >to >> Drummond's comment that he had been looking for numbers information. If >> the details were worked out so that it was possible and mutually >beneficial >> for them to join I could see other orgs joining. >> >> In terms of membership category pricing, I just pointed to the web site >and >> suggest Drummond talk to Jamie and Eduardo (didn't realize I should have >> said Scott, for which I apologize) about whether or not the OpenID >> foundation classifies as an Association and suggested we get the ball >> rolling and involve the appropriate OASIS people quickly. >> >> Regarding it being about who owns the IPR, most Open Source foundations >> require an agreement from their committers that their contributions are >> contributed to the foundation, who then owns the copyright. I am not a >> lawyer, but it seems to me that means the foundation is capable of >entering >> into IPR agreements. The definition could be expanded, at OASIS >discretion >> after appropriate discussion and decisions, to include employees and >> recognized committers in good standing, if and only if the member org >meets >> X,Y, Z (TBD) criteria as an Open Source org. My guess is that these >> criteria would need to be decided before hand and written up as an OASIS >> Policy by the staff, and approved by the Board. >> >> One concern I could see is that employers might have people work on Open >> Source projects in order to get around paying the membership fee. This >> could be negated by: >> (a) policy that the official email that shows up as your address when >> emailing the TC lists is the one from the foundation, not the one from >your >> employer. >> (b) policy that any contributed documents not contain marketing or >employer >> branding unless that employer is a member. Symposium might be an >exception, >> unless we currently require presenters to be employed by OASIS members. >> (c) policy that foundation gets the single vote and to get their own >> influencing vote an employer needs their own membership. >> >> The above are solely my ideas and in no way represent statements or >opinion >> by OASIS. For clarification on current OASIS policy and practices you >must >> contact OASIS personnel. If you don't know who the correct person is, ask >> your TC staff contact. >> >> Bill >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Mary McRae on behalf of Mary McRae >> Sent: Fri 4/25/2008 9:08 AM >> To: Barnhill, William [USA]; 'Drummond Reed'; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org; >> 'Scott McGrath' >> Subject: RE: [xdi] Membership #s and costs >> >> Hi Bill, >> >> >> >> I would prefer that you discuss any membership category pricing with >> Scott McGrath - individuals must be*employed* by the organization, not >> members of, in order to qualify under an organization's membership. For >> instance, STC is a member (Society of Technical Communicators). They have >a >> handful of employees but thousands of members. They are allowed 2 >> participants - either actual employees or designated members. It's all >tied >> to who owns your IPR. Please do not make any claims about who is/isn't >able >> to participate. Remember, OASIS' only source of income is member dues. >> >> >> >> Regards, >> >> >> >> Mary >> >> >> >> From: Barnhill, William [USA] [mailto:barnhill_william@bah.com] >> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 8:37 AM >> To: Drummond Reed; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [xdi] Membership #s and costs >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi All, >> >> Drummond raised a question on the call the other day regarding what the >max >> numbers and costs for each level of OASIS participation are. You can >find >> that information buried in the OASIS site at the following URL: >> http://www.oasis-open.org/join/categories.php#individual >> >> My guess is that any Open Source foundation level org such as OpenID will >> have 100+ member, and given that the cost per year is $7500 for >contributor >> level. The good news is that the highest contributor category is 500+ >> people and is only $500 more ($8k). If you can get OASIS to accept an >Open >> Source organization as an Association then they can be grouped into the >> non-profit etc grouping, and the cost for contributor level goes down to >> $1100. >> >> >> I'd like to be engaged in talks with them regarding joining OASIS as I >can >> grease the wheels while I'm on the TAB and get easier answers to >questions >> (above info case in point). Once we get to a good point (should be >quickly) >> we can talk to Jamie and Eduardo about getting them declared an >> Association. >> >> Thanks, >> Bill >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Giovanni Bartolomeo [mailto:giovanni.bartolomeo@uniroma2.it] >> Sent: Thu 4/24/2008 6:09 AM >> To: Drummond Reed; xdi@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [xdi] XDI dictionary, reasoner... >> >> Hello Drummond, All, >> >> as for last week's request, I'm reintroducing this issue. After receiving >> your answer, I tried to figure out how to prove that two XDI RDF >statements >> >> =giovanni+home+phone/$type$xsd$string/ >> =giovanni/+home+phone/ >> >> does identify the same node. In order to recall the whole issue, which >is >> now also on the wiki thanks to Drummond, <http://wiki.oasis- >> open.org/xdi/XdiReasoners> http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiReasoners I >> report hereafter the whole message, at the end my elaborations: >> >> >> >> >> ********** Drummond replies ********** >> >> I am so glad someone finally asked this question in black and white - I >> have been thinking about this issue of "XDI expressivity" for months now >> given the fundamental capabilities of XDI RDF. Forgive me for providing >an >> extended answer, but I think the question can be so revealing about the >> power of XDI RDF. >> >> First, to answer your question right up front, "Do those three XDI >> addresses identify the same literal node?", my answer is: "You cannot >know >> deterministically without reference to the XDI dictionaries used by the >> statements." >> >> The reason is that the three statements represent three different paths >> through the XDI RDF graph, and as you pointed out, each path represents >> different semantics. So you you really have to drill all the way down >into >> the graphs, and the statements represented by each graph, in order to >> answer your question. >> >> To do this, let's start by looking at the three graphs visually in X3 >> Simple (one reason I love X3 Simple is that it lets you see the visual >> pattern of the graph while at the same time seeing the addresses). >> >> #1 >> =giovanni+phone+home >> $type$xsd$string >> "+39 06 4451843" >> #2 >> =giovanni >> +phone+home >> "+39 06 4451843" >> #3 >> =giovanni+phone >> +home >> "+39 06 4451843" >> >> Now, let's "fully explode" each of these into ALL the XDI statements they >> represent. >> >> #1 (5 statements) >> =giovanni >> $has >> +phone >> =giovanni+phone >> $has >> +home >> $type >> $has >> $xsd >> $type$xsd >> $has >> $string >> =giovanni+phone+home >> $type$xsd$string >> "+39 06 4451843" >> >> #2 (3 statements) >> =giovanni >> $has >> +phone+home >> +phone >> $has >> +home >> =giovanni >> +phone+home >> "+39 06 4451843" >> >> #3 (2 statements) >> =giovanni >> $has >> +phone >> =giovanni+phone >> +home >> "+39 06 4451843" >> >> Isn't it fascinating that the first graph represents five statements, the >> second three, and the final one only two? >> >> In any case, all three options here (plus more - see below) appear to be >> completely valid chains of XDI statements between the XDI subject >=giovanni >> and the XDI literal "+39 06 4451843". But none of them asserts exactly >the >> same semantics (the only way to do that would be to use XDI synonyms, >i.e., >> $is statements). However using an XDI reasoner and an XDI dictionary >(which >> itself is just a set of XDI statements comprising definitions), you could >> verify that according to that dictionary, all these statements identify >the >> same literal node. >> >> In fact the dictionary is pretty short. Here it is: >> >> +phone >> $is$a <--1--> >> + >> $type$xsd$string >> $has <--2--> >> +home >> $a$has <--3--> >> +home >> $has$a <--4--> >> +home >> $a$has$a <--5--> >> +home >> +home >> $is$a <--6--> >> + >> $has <--7--> >> +phone >> $a$has <--8--> >> +phone >> $has$a <--9--> >> +phone >> $a$has$a <--10--> >> +phone >> $type >> $has >> $xsd >> $type$xsd >> $has >> $string >> >> As short as it is, the semantics represented by those statements - while >> crystal clear from a pure XDI semantics point-of-view - represent a >> surprising range of grammatical relationships a human POV. Roughly >> translated to English, the first ten statements say: >> >> 1) A phone is both a subject (noun) and a label for a type of data >> (typically called a "phone number", but often abbreviated in English as >> just "phone"). >> >> 2) A phone can have a home, i.e., as a noun, it can have a possessive >> relationship with another noun, home. >> >> 3) A phone is something a home can have (possessive relationship). >> >> 4) A phone has an attribute of home. >> >> 5) Phone is an attribute of a home. >> >> 6) Home is a subject. >> >> 7) A home can have a phone (possessive relationship - inverse of #3). >> >> 8) A home is something a phone can have (possessive relationship - >inverse >> of #2). >> >> 9) A home has an attribute of phone (inverse of #5). >> >> 10) Home is an attribute of a phone (inverse of #4). >> >> Armed with that dictionary, an XDI reasoner can quickly prove that all >the >> following XDI statements identify the same literal: >> >> =giovanni+phone+home/$type$xsd$string/ >> =giovanni+home+phone/$type$xsd$string/ >> =giovanni/+home+phone/ >> =giovanni/+phone+home/ >> =giovanni+phone/+home/ >> =giovanni+home/+phone/ >> >> However, if you remove any of those XDI dictionary statements, some of >the >> above are no longer provably true. For example, if you remove the >> statements: >> >> +phone >> $has >> $home >> +home >> $a$has >> +phone >> >> Then you could no longer prove that the following two statements identify >> the same XDI object as the rest: >> >> =giovanni+phone+home/$type$xsd$string/ >> =giovanni/+phone+home/ >> >> They MIGHT identify the same literal as the rest, but now you have >nothing >> you can prove that with. >> >> There's much more I'd like to say about this simple dictionary, but I'm >out >> of time. However I encourage everyone who is interested to study it >> closely. To test your knowledge, here's a quiz question: >> >> "Given the dictionary above, how can you prove that it is valid >> for the XDI object of all six statements to be a literal string?" >> >> =Drummond >> >> >> Now, I think the most important part to understand is related to the >> semantics underlying the dictionary sentences: >> >> >> +phone >> $has <--2--> >> +home >> $has$a <--4--> >> +home >> >> >> which in English means >> >> >> >> 2) A phone can have a home, i.e., as a noun, it can have a possessive >> relationship with another noun, home. >> >> 4) A phone has an attribute of home. >> >> >> $has, according to XDI RDF model v9, is aggregation, meaning that >> Any two XDI subjects with a $has relationship can be concatenated into a >> single XRI representing this relationship. >> Thus +phone+home is the way how aggregation is expressed. >> Whereas $has$a is defined as a composition. The object in the RDF >statement >> is therefore an "attribute" belonging to the subject. >> Example similar to the one in XDI RDF v9: =giovanni/$has$a/+hair+color; >> thus =giovanni/+hair+color/+black should be a valid XDI RDF statement, >> expressing composition. >> Quoting from wikipedia, difference between aggregation and composition: >> Aggregation differs from ordinary composition in that it does not imply >> ownership. In composition, when the owning object is destroyed, so are >the >> contained objects. In aggregation, this is not necessarily true. For >> example, a university owns various departments (e.g., chemistry), and >each >> department has a number of professors. If the university closes, the >> departments will no longer exist, but the professors in those departments >> will continue to exist. Therefore, a University can be seen as a >> composition of departments, whereas departments have an aggregation of >> professors. In addition, a Professor could work in more than one >> department, but a department could not be part of more than one >university. >> >> Now, I tried to work out a formal proof using the assertions 1)-10) but I >> failed in proving >> that all the following XDI statements identify the same literal: >> >> ... >> =giovanni+home+phone/$type$xsd$string/ >> =giovanni/+home+phone/ >> ... >> >> Probably I'm missing something (probably some underlying semantics), >> however, can you give some hints? Maybe we can work out the prove once >for >> all and report this in the wiki/deliverable, as reference? >> >> Thanks, >> Giovanni >> >> >> At 01.32 24/04/2008, Drummond Reed wrote: >> >> >> >> 4) TECH TOPIC: XDI DICTIONARY AND XDI REASONER >> >> On last week's call Giovanni requested that our tech topic this week be >the >> XDI dictionary and XDI reasoner discussion we started on the list. >> Wikipedia >> has a good article on semantic reasoners: >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Reasoner> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_Reasoner >> >> Drummond created a wiki page to capture the email thread for further >> discussion: >> >> <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiReasoners> >http://wiki.oasis- >> open.org/xdi/XdiReasoners >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]