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

[Sam Hunting <sam_hunting@yahoo.com>]

I understand that James Mason is the technical liaison between ISO and
the Oasis effort? If that is so, presumably he is aware of these
efforts?

S.

--- "Tsao, Scott" <scott.tsao@Boeing.com> wrote:
> > 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
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>


=====
<!-- 
     "To imagine a language is to imagine a form of life."
     - Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations -->

__________________________________________________
Terrorist Attacks on U.S. - How can you help?
Donate cash, emergency relief information
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/fc/US/Emergency_Information/