Re: [topicmaps-comment] RE: OASIS vs W3C

[Murray Altheim <murray.altheim@sun.com>]

"Tsao, Scott" wrote:
> 
> From: Bernard Vatant
> 
> > 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".
> 
> I don't think this wording of "strongly recommended" is a strong-enough statement
> for me as an implementor of those standards to be comfortable with.  Many, many
> corporations nowadays are (almost) forced to send more than a handful of people
> to participate in a myriad of standards bodies just to keep track of what is happening
> with the standards and technologies shaping the World Wild Web, fully realizing
> that many of them are doing exactly the same thing (from the end-user's perspective).

Please give an example of how the proposed TCs in the topic map space are
somehow overlapping with work going on in other standards bodies. I don't
see it. RDF, DAML+OIL, XTM, CG, all are *different* technologies, are aimed
at performing *different* tasks, and have *different* fundamental assumptions.
What all the hubbub has been about (like "RDF vs. XTM") is seeing how these
technologies can produce synergies when used together. There's no good reason
to eliminate or combine them, and lots of good reasons to see how they can
work together.

  RDF: graph theory in XML
  RDF Schema: how to develop a graph-based markup language using RDF
  DAML+OIL: online agents + hooks into ontologies
  XTM: subject-based mapping
  CG:  conceptual graphs (existential graphs)
  etc.

> > [...] 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.
> 
> Again (nothing agaist you personally) wordings like "approval" and "trust" do not
> bring more comfort to me (personally).  The "approval" process in OASIS is not known
> to me and it can easily be perceived as "rubber stamping".  In fact, I wonder how
> knowledgeable the OASIS Board members are with regard to the ongoing semantic-web
> related activities in ISO, W3C, and OASIS (and others) and, if so, what are the
> relationships (and/or dependencies) among those activities.  My impression from
> the OASIS/TopicMaps.Org evening meeting in Montreal was that anyone could (sort of)
> "dream-up" an idea and get few people to agree to start an OASIS TC.  And that is
> the "randomness" I alluded to.

There's nothing random about it. TCs are started where there is a perceived
need. And I have no idea where you'd get the impression that the OASIS board
is composed of standards-clueless people. Everyone on that board is to my
knowledge very well-acquainted with the ongoing activities in ISO, W3C and 
OASIS. Certainly Sun's board member is. I just finished talking with him
and I can assure you that the relationships and dependencies between the
various bodies (which extend far beyond the three you mention) are his 
primary priority and responsibility.
 
> BOTTOM LINE (from my personal knothole): Corporations will start re-evaluate the
> "true value" they get out of participating in multiple (duplicated) standards
> activities and (may) decide to trim back substantially in view of the worldwide
> economic situations we are in today.  It is (about) time for the standards bodies
> to (willingly and proactively) work together to serve the interest of the user
> community at large.

Perhaps Boeing will start to re-evaluate the "true value" it gets out of
participating in standards activities. I don't see where you can speak
for other companies and how they allocate their standards participation
resources. We're all trimming back, and we *are* the majority participants
in the standards bodies, so nobody should pretend that there is some other
"they" out there.

You've slung a lot of arrows Scott, and I'm not sure why. Many of them
seem unwarranted and personal. If Boeing has some reason to want to 
undermine the legitimacy of the OASIS process, let's air the grievances
with some specifics, but please don't disparage the necessary process by 
which our community has obtained to begin rebuilding.

Murray

...........................................................................
Murray Altheim, SGML/XML Grease Monkey  <mailto:murray.altheim&#64;sun.com>
XML Technology Center
Sun Microsystems, 1601 Willow Rd., MS UMPK17-102, Menlo Park, CA 94025

     i am going to see if i cannot reform insects in general
     i have constituted myself a missionary extraordinary 
     and minister plenipotentiary and entomological to bring
     idealism to the little struggling brothers -- archy (1927)