Paola, (01)
Didn't see your message in time to do breakfast, sorry. (02)
I will still be in conferences the next couple of days before
traveling back home.
Allow me to get back to after this week (if you still want to talk.) (03)
We are in fact, quite transparent. Maybe you can catch up on what the
OOR Initiative have been doing in the mean time. (04)
Once again, this is not the right forum for this discussion. (05)
Cheers. =ppy
-- (06)
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 6:35 AM, <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Gosh Peter,
> you never know what to think these days. :-)
>
> People are patenting rice, genes, molecules of air even, I just wanted
> you to reassure us that your are planning to derive ip from 'open
> ontology' name, concepts and related artifacts (that may give rise to
> a copyright infringment, to start with, should we start seeking advice
> from the respective solicitors LOL :-)
>
> It must be very tough times indeed if we got to this point.
>
> OK - I ll try to catch you over breakfast or first thing in the
> morning to learn more about the OOR (downstairs in half an hour,
> assuming we are in the same hotel)
>
> However, I really think this respectable community of peers, as well
> as myself, would like to hear about the distinction that you are now
> making between ontolog forum, as a knowledge community which has
> generated discourse and artifacts relating to the OO domain and how
> come such a topic like 'opennes' is discussed in a non public list, so
> with a purpose in mind which is not generating open knowledge
>
> I also feel whatever the OOR initiative plans to be, of which I look
> forward to hear more about, the 'communique' should take that into
> account, after all we have not been working consistently for two days
> to generate knowledge that is going to be 'ingested' and commercially
> exploited by a private initiative, then this community should know
> more about it, and agree to certain things
>
> Please shed some light on this list , as many people consistently put
> a lot of personal efforts and knowledge to this community, starting
> from yourself, and consideration is due for those who firmly believe
> that openness can only be exercised with open processes, and that
> plain exploitation of intellectual property right, should be
> exercises accordance to legislation in vigour
>
> ttyl
>
> p (07)
> On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Peter Yim <peter.yim@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Paola,
> >
> > You aren't taking my joke about patenting the word "open" seriously, are
>you?
> >
> > =ppy
> >
> > P.S. as mentioned the OOR Initiative is independent of
> > OntologySummit2008 (and even the [ontolog-forum].) Therefore, please
> > take your OOR-Initiative-related issues up with me, Leo or Mike
> > off-line. Thanks. =ppy
> > -- (08)
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:42 PM, <paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > Greetings all
> > >
> > > It was a pleasure to finally meet everybody at the Summit, and thanks
> > > again for efforts being put up. The forum is a great resource for all
> > > of us, and as the community grows it is important that 'active
> > > community members' take more responsiblity for its development.
> > > I hope it continues to stay that way.
> > >
> > > I was surprised to learn today about an 'open ontology founders
> > > meeting' which took place in January
> > >
> > >
>http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2008_01_23#nid17D9
> > >
> > > because I found no reference in my inbox nor in the list archives, to
> > > any invitation to participate in such meeting.
> > > Can someone point me to any announcement about that meeting (before it
> > > took place?)
> > >
> > > Specifically on that wiki page, ther is a reference to some not better
> > > specified IPR being reserved, but no acknowledgment of prior
> > > work and existing IPR, which is in contradiction of some of the
> > > principles of our community and forum, and could possibly cause
> > > conflict
> > >
> > > Being an early proponent of 'Open Ontology', both in terms of wording
> > > and concepts (I have published papers on this forum and elsewhere
> > > about this work) and having already extracted a set of metadata from
> > > the framework, which our metadata champion Michael did not know of,
> > > (while the rest of this community did, as we discussed it extensively
> > > on this list) I was particularly surprised to learn that the
> > > participants to the 2008 summit have not been informed of the pre
> > > existing , and prior work under the same heading, and related
> > > pre-existing IPR.
> > >
> > > Issues such as 'ownership' and control of 'open ontology' concept and
> > > derived artifacts should be addressed, before they can be claimed and
> > > trademarked by related parties.
> > >
> > > I would thefore encourage clarification as required, as well as
> > > acnkowledgment of prior IPR, in order to avoid potential conflicts,
> > > and some information relating to such new lists where the OOR work is
> > > being discussed where we can cross reference the contributions made to
> > > date, so that they can be duly acknowledged by the body of knowledge
> > > which is being generated.
> > >
> > > I would encourage such issues to be addressed and clarified before the
> > > communique issued, as some of the statements therein contained may
> > > constitue an infringement of existing copyright, and this forum
> > > brought up to date on the new OOR list (where to join?) and other
> > > developments
> > >
> > > I look forward to developments
> > >
> > > --
> > > Paola Di Maio
> > > School of IT
> > > www.mfu.ac.th
> > > ********************************************* (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|