On Saturday 30 May 2009 10:33:23 Ivan Frade wrote: > You say "compromise". I guess that happens when you have two solutions and > find a middle term. In this case we have: a good solution (open source > developement) and a second solution that is the same, but adding a layer of > useless burocracy on top (that does no actual work and gets money). Either > you clarify what is the value that OSCAF add or it shouldn't be added.
Stefan or Leo, would you please give an answer to this. I fail to find the correct words. > > 1. OSCAF > > There was a lot of concern about OSCAF. However, OSCAF has always been > > intended to be an open and non-profit organization to give an "official" > > face > > to the desktop ontology maintenance. It is not driven by a specific > > company, > > nor will it hold any copyright over the ontologies. You can look at it as > > the > > KDE e.V. for the desktop ontologies. The "scary" texts on the homepage > > will be > > changed, the semanticdesktop.org domain will be transferred to OSCAF. > > The latter is important since we need the domain to stay with an > > impartial player. > > XESAM maintaining nepomuk otologies: > 1) There is ontology maintenance > 2) It is driven by meritocracy = the people who does the work > 3) The copyright works as in any other open source project > 4) No fees/burocracy -> just work > 5) No "scary" texts, or legal subterfuges. this is what I propose. > > Besides, KDE e.V. (or GNOME Foundation) doesn't have veto power over the > contents of the respective projects. neither does OSCAF. > > 2. The actual development > > The actual development will happen on freedesktop.org. We can reuse > > existing > > development facilities such as an svn, mailing lists, task trackers, and > > so on. Whenever a release is to be made the new version will be uploaded > > to the > > OSCAF server (might not be that important to "us" desktop developers at > > the moment but is for semantic web compatibility). > > As i said few mails ago, The open source community does the work and put > the resources, and OSCAF "tag" a release (and gets the money). Sounds > unfair. OSCAF is the open-source community. There is no one else. But there are others who can explain this better. Cheers, Sebastian > > 3. Copyright > > The ontologies will be released under a free licence. Contributors will > > keep > > their copyright. We propose a dual MIT/CCBY licensing since ontologies > > can be > > seen as creative work rather than real source-code. > > Not sure about this. Not sure even if it is relevant at all. The current > Nepomuk license is open enough to allow a open source developement. > > > 4. Maintenance > > Within the Nepomuk project tools have been developed to ensure the > > quality and > > the validity of the ontologies. We propose to install these on the > > development > > server (freedesktop) to ensure that > > - commits do not break backwards-compatibility > > - commits do not introduce contradictions > > - etc. > > Probably those tools are open source already. i dont see the big deal here. > > Is this a compromise everybody can live with? > > > Please comment. > > I dont like it. We are here to build ontologies (or improve the existent > ones). For that we just need people working > and Infrastructure; everything else is superfluous. OSCAF is not providing > any of those ingredients (and adding problems on top). The conclusion is > easy. > > Regards, > > Ivan _______________________________________________ Xesam mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xesam
