[topicmaps-comment] OASIS vs W3C

[Bernard Vatant <b.vatant@wanadoo.fr>]

Scott

Your concerns are relevant and well-thought, as usual

>  ...  how does the OASIS TC's compare with the W3C Web Ontology (WebOnt)
WG (http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/) in terms of providing "ontology
vocabulary" (or higher) in Tim B-L's depiction of the semantic web
architecture (http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/slide10-0.html)?

I can't answer of course for this - still potential - Member Section. But
it's clear and explicit in guidelines for OASIS TC's that liaison with
working groups on similar questions, inside or outside OASIS, is "strongly
recommended". The Published Subjects TC, for example, should not work "from
scratch", and take into account any legacy on that matter, and the similar
ongoing efforts as the one you mention.

> I hope the imminent! OASIS TopicMaps.Org member section will provide a
forum to address those architectural issues first, before we dive
(prematurely) into the (seemingly random) creation of TM-related TC's.

"Random" is a rather tough qualification at that time. The sample is too
small to test any statistical model :)
But you have to keep in mind the fact that Member Sections and Technical
Committees have somehow independent legal status inside OASIS. Even if the
creation of TC's may seem "random" to you, it's submitted to OASIS Board
approval, and I trust this approval process and rules to be a safeguard
against too much "randomness". It's in fact that kind of safeguard that the
community has looked for in the transition into OASIS. The TC's created must
be relevant not only in the frame of the Topic Maps community (or a part of
it) but of the wider communities represented in/by OASIS.

Regards

Bernard

-------------------------------------------------
Bernard Vatant - Consultant
Mondeca - "Making Sense of Content"
www.mondeca.com
bernard.vatant@mondeca.com
-------------------------------------------------