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

["Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@Boeing.com>]

> From: Murray Altheim

> 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 [...]

I think you are speaking from a "technologist's" perspective, not necessarily from
an "end-user's or implementor's" perspective.  I see a need to align those (seemingly)
competing technologies in terms of a coherent architectural framework for (semantic)
web applications, with details of "usage patterns" or "best practices" to elaborate
those "good reasons to see how they can work together."

> 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 [...]

That will be good, and I was just sharing my perception which may prove to be my
(personal) ignorance.  I wonder how many large corporations (in the standards user,
not vendor community) are as efficient as Sun in terms of coordinating their
participations in various standards bodies.
 
> 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.

As I disclaimed (as "personal knothole") I did not intend (or pretend) to speak
for The Boeing Company, let alone any other companies.  Please do not misunderstand
(or misrepresent) what I said.

> 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.

Again, please DO NOT misinterpret what I said!

Thanks,

Scott