I'm still fine with the wording. (01)
Ciao,
Rex (02)
At 7:30 AM -0700 8/19/05, Peter P. Yim wrote:
>Thanks for the input, Leo.
>
>>Are we still happy with the current wording?
>
>[ppy] I am.
>
>
>> Maybe we should rebroadcast the IP policy statement
>> more generally?
>
>[ppy] Yes, indeed. This conversation is the lead-up to that post,
>which I hope to make to the [ontolog-forum] list.
>
>Regards. =ppy
>--
>
>
>Obrst,Leo J. wrote Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:25:01 -0400:
>>This sounds fine with me, Peter, since we want to underscore Ontolog's
>>openness but yet allow members to gain in many ways. Maybe we should
>>rebroadcast the IP policy statement more generally? Are we still happy
>>with the current wording?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>Leo
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Peter P. Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday,
>>August 18, 2005 12:31 PM
>>To: Bob Smith; 'Rex Brooks'; conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Obrst,Leo J.
>>Cc: '[ontolog-admin]'
>>Subject: Re: Writing/Editing the Summary Report of the Aug. 25, Health
>>Informatics Panel Discussion
>>
>>Thanks, Bob.
>>
>>On re-read ... I noticed minor errata which I am updating (and
>>re-posting) as below:
>>
>>//
>> > [RexB] I also have a question for you and Peter, whom I am
>> > copying, could I shop this to media, for no remuneration?
>>
>>[ppy] my take: as far as Ontolog is concerned, its IPR policy
>>(ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32)
>>should rule.
>>
>>That said, I personally do want to see that community members do
>>end up 'gaining' (both intellectually, opportunistically,
>>commercially, financially, ...) from their engagement with this CoP
>>-- I trust that (to provide continuous value to its constituency)
>>being the only way the CoP can be sustainable.
>>
>>That said, may I suggest that we have (a) an open, community
>>sanctioned summary report of the 8/25 session that will be
>>published by Ontolog, goes into its archives, gets used as the
>>community submission to the Fed HIT Conference, ...etc. But then,
>>since authors actually hold the copyrights (not Ontolog ... Ontolog
>>just stipulates that they should carry an open content license),
>>you guys could (b) re-factor that and shop another, or multiple
>>articles elsewhere (gratis, or for remuneration, as you see fit) as
>>long as proper attributions are made (to Ontolog and the other
>>contributors, namely Ontolog, the panelists, and those
>>participating in the discussion and discourse.)
>>
>>How does that sound?
>>
>>[Maybe we should bounce this off each other a bit, and then find a
>>way to post this (in its reiterated form) to the forum as a
>>guideline for future community work products.]
>>
>>Cheers. =ppy
>>//
>>
>>=ppy
>>--
>>
>>
>>Bob Smith wrote Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:17:46 -0700:
>>
>>>Hi,
>>>
>>>Peter, thanks for verbalizing the IP Chain issue in a context of many
>>>continuing versions of these concepts.
>>>
>>>
>>>Cheers,
>>>
>>>Bob
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: Peter P. Yim [mailto:peter.yim@xxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday,
>>>August 18, 2005 9:02 AM
>>>To: Rex Brooks; conrad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>Cc: [ontolog-admin]; Leo Obrst; Bob Smith
>>>Subject: Re: Writing/Editing the Summary Report of the Aug. 25, Health
>>>Informatics Panel Discussion
>>>
>>>> [RexB] I also have a question for you and Peter, whom I am >
>>
>>copying,
>>
>>>could I shop this to media, for no remuneration?
>>>
>>>[ppy] my take: as far as Ontolog is concerned, its IPR policy
>>>(ref: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32)
>>>should rule.
>>>
>>>That said, I personally do want to see that community members do end
>>
>>up
>>
>>>'gaining (both intellectually, opportunistically, commercially,
>>
>>financially,
>>
>>>...) from their engagement with this CoP -- I trust that (to provide
>>>continuous value to its
>>>constituency) being the only way the CoP can be sustainable.
>>>
>>>That said, may I suggest that we have (a) an open, community
>>
>>sanctioned
>>
>>>summary report of the 8/25 session that will be published by Ontolog,
>>
>>goes
>>
>>>into its archives, gets used as the community submission to the Fed
>>
>>HIT
>>
>>>Conference, ...etc. But then, since authors actually hold the
>>
>>copyrights
>>
>>>(not Ontolog ... Ontolog just stipulates that they should carry an
>>>open content
>>
>>license), you
>>
>>>guys could re-factor that and shop it elsewhere (gratis, or for
>>>remuneration, as you see fit) as long as proper attributed is made (to
>>>Ontolog and the other contributors, namely Ontolog, the panelists, and
>>
>>those
>>
>>>participating in the discussion and discourse.)
>>>
>>>How does that sound?
>>>[Maybe we should bounce this off each other a bit, and then find a way
>>
>>to
>>
>>>post this (in its reiterated form) to the forum as a guideline for
>>
>>future
>>
>>>community work products.]
>>>
>>>Cheers. =ppy
>>>
>>>P.S. I'm routing this thread also to Leo (co-convener), Bob (planning
>>
>>team)
>>
>>>and [ontolog-admin] (open archive) to solicit further comments and a
>>
>>record
>>
>>>of this very useful dialog. =ppy
>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>Rex Brooks wrote Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:04:54 -0700:
>>>
>>>>Hi Kurt,
>>>>
>>>>I wanted to take advantage of this brief window between meetings
>>>>of TCs which are finali zing specifications for public review to
>>>>ask if you would be so kind as to take on the task of writing
>>>>and/or editing a Summary Report of the Health Informatics Panel
>>>>Discussion I am moderating on Aug. 25, 2005?
>>>>
>>>>I understand that you are the chief Ontolog scribe, so to speak,
>>>>or historian, or perhaps managing editor might be the more
>>>>accurate term.
>>>>Regardless, the job of preparing and moderating is more than
>>>>sufficient for my needs (small joke), This is especially so since
>>>>I am
>>
>>
>>>>on the spot to produce a pilot that is taking its not-so-merry
>>>>time getting to the point where I can actually start useful work,
>>>>with less
>>
>>
>>>>than a month, or perhaps a bit more if it misses its first target date
>>
>>
>>>>of Sept. 14, and slips to Sept. 23.
>>>>
>>>>So, if you can do that, I would greatly appreciate it.
>>>>
>>>>I also have a question for you and Peter, whom I am copying,
>>>>could I shop this to media, for no remuneration?
>>>>
>>>>I would like to get some publicity for these issues and I specifically
>>
>>
>>>>am thinking about Federal Computer Week and Washington Technology.
>>>>
>>>>Ciao,
>>>>Rex (03)
--
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309
_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:ontolog-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-admin/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/ (04)
|