Hi > > > This way: > > - development is granted against any istitutional accident, such as > failure > > of the organization, take over by any industrial partner, change of > > membership policies, attack by patents trolls, and... escape to Cayman > > islands :-P - if any other entity (istitutional or not) wants to help in > > promotion and development, it is granted may do it without regards about > a > > single organization internal decision but only accordly the whole > community > > Maybe I did not formulate it clearly enough, but this is pretty much what I > have in mind. OSCAF would not have any other power than the power of its > members. And by that I mean the members that are also contributors to the > ontology project. We join OSCAF to promote to the world that we unite to > create an open standard for desktop ontologies. Sure, it could all be done > without OSCAF, but why not take what's already there?
As i proposed just few minutes ago, split the OSCAF promotion/standarization work from the development part. Otherwise it will slow down all enthusiastic projects out there. "What is already there". and what is there? A foundation with no much movement, no list of memberships, huge fees for uncertain porpoises and benefits... But still, it can be relaunched with a better scope, definition and transparency. > We (and by we I mean > OSACF, I mean the developers, I mean us all, because in the end there is > only > us, developing the "normal" way and promoting through something "official" > as > OSCAF) only benefit from an official portal to the outside (corporate) > world. >> developers == OSCAF False The companies really interested to use an standard will probably check: what is the people using out there? How many different projects are using it? Who developed it? > It gives a stronger image. > Imagine in a few months or years from now when our ontologies are rock > solid. > If at that point a big player will be interested in desktop ontologies > having > an frontend such as OSCAF will be a strong argument to use our ontologies > instead of creating their own (maybe even closed) ones. > The argument should be: "hey, look the huge amount of work these people did. It must be good, because it works in this and that and that projects. We cannot do this again from scratch...". Regards, Ivan
_______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
