Ken, (01)
> [KL] I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR rapids that W3C
> and OASIS continually attempt to navigate. (02)
[ppy] great! ... maybe you can give us some advice. (03)
> [KL] If you believe the Ontolog policy
> covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS deprecated
> policy. (04)
[ppy] good point. Homest answer: I am not sure ... but I trust the
(then) OASIS process and policy (actually, I trust Jon Bosak, who was
heavily involved with crafting it then, and of course, UBL chair,
enough to default to that.) ... In your opinion, do you think the
Ontolog IPR policy covers enough ground to allow us to safely drop the
reference to the OASIS deprecated policy? (05)
Besides, it's not just the IPR policy, though, it's the entire process
that I am certain, is much better thought out than what we could have
done, at the time, for Ontolog (and, remembering that we were, after
all, a UBL TC spin-off then.) (06)
There are other things that are ready for a face-lift too, like moving
the reference to OPL v1.0 to a Creative Commons v3 license ... but, I
(personal opinion) don't want to open this can of worms, as I see
moves like that are only cosmetic, do not add value, and may create
potential tensions that may just hurt the prevailing collaborative
spirit without advancing our cause by one iota. ... Therefore, I
suggest we hold-off until something breaks (which hasn't happened yet)
or circumstances arise that forces us to revisit the matter. (07)
Thanks & regards. =ppy
-- (08)
On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 7:33 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I'm familiar (one might say *too* familiar) with the IPR rapids that W3C and
> OASIS continually attempt to navigate. The previous OASIS policy was found
> to be insufficient; hence, the new one. If you believe the Ontolog policy
> covers enough ground, I would drop the reference to the OASIS deprecated
> policy.
>
> Ken (09)
> On May 6, 2008, at 10:13 AM, Peter Yim wrote:
>
> Ken,
>
>
> [KL] To which
> of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our processes point?
>
> [ppy] that would be your: (1) refer to the policy in place when
> Ontolog was reconstituted.
> The clarification I put in pegs the default to the OASIS IPR Policy in
> place as of 23-Sep-2002.
>
>
> [KL] Also, the OASIS IPR policy requires "At the time a TC is chartered, the
> proposal to form the TC must specify the IPR Mode under which the Technical
> Committee will operate."
>
> [ppy] I believe this is only put in place (by OASIS ... Jamie, or
> someone familiar with this, please correct me if I got it wrong) AFTER
> OASIS has offered a choice of IPR modes (which wasn't in place until
> after 23-Sep-2002.)
>
> Anyhow that is moot because, Ontolog ONLY defaults to the OASIS policy
> and process IF there is no clearly specified ONTOLOG policy and
> process, but we (Ontolog) actually do have a clearly specified IPR
> Policy, as in http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid32
>
>
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> -- (010)
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I'm not familiar with the processes defined in our reconstitution. To which
> of the three choices I listed in my previous email do our processes point?
>
> Also, the OASIS IPR policy requires "At the time a TC is chartered, the
> proposal to form the TC must specify the IPR Mode under which the Technical
> Committee will operate." See
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php#tcformation. Should
> Ontolog declare under which mode it intends to operate? If not, it is
> unclear which parts of the OASIS IPR policy come into play.
>
> Ken (011)
> On May 6, 2008, at 9:08 AM, Peter Yim wrote:
>
> Thank you very much for pointing that out, Ken.
>
> I will make the following clarification, changing the bullet in question -
>
> To:
> "when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the [ontolog-forum] default
> to the OASIS IPR policy (effective as of 23-September-2002; in
> accordance with the processes defined in our reconstitution of
> September 2002.)"
>
> From:
> "when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the [ontolog-forum] default
> to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance with the processes defined in
> our reconstitution of September 2002.)"
>
> Thanks & regards. =ppy
> -- (012)
> On Tue, May 6, 2008 at 5:54 AM, Ken Laskey <klaskey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Note that OASIS revised its IPR policy effective 1 October 2005. See
> http://www.oasis-open.org/who/intellectualproperty.php. It should be made
> clear whether we (1) refer to the policy in place when Ontolog was
> reconstituted, (2) explicitly acknowledge the current policy, or (3) default
> to changes in the OASIS policy as these become effective.
>
> Ken (013)
> On May 5, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Peter P. Yim wrote:
>
>
> o when in doubt, IPR matters relating to the
>
> [ontolog-forum] default to the OASIS IPR policy (in accordance
>
> with the processes defined in our reconstitution of September
>
> 2002.) (35)
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> 7151 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508 (014)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (015)
|