ppy/oor_chat-transcript_edited_20130618b.txt ------ Chat transcript from room: oor_20130618 2013-06-18 GMT-08:00 [PDT] ------ [8:26] PeterYim: welcome to the = OpenOntologyRepository: "Revisiting the OOR Strategy and Tactics - II" Discussion Session - Tue 2013_06_18 = session page: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_06_18 Attendees: PeterYim (chair), BobSmith, KenBaclawski, MichaelGruninger, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider == Proceedings: == [8:30] PeterYim: Hi Michael! [8:30] MichaelGruninger: just connecting now ... [8:30] PeterYim: take your time [8:37] PeterYim: Hi Bob, Hi Till ... [8:39] BobSmith: (ref. casual discussion, that our focus today is on "what needs to change, in the way we are proceeding with the OOR initiative") Peter - I appologize for not having an anwswer - BUT do you have a "Business Case" for the "OOR - Go To Place for Ontology"? [8:41] BobSmith: NIST, Building & Fire under Mark Palmer, delivered 3 reports on the need for interoperability (i.e. Ontology) in the Capital Building Industry...as part of a Business Case motivation [8:40] PeterYim: == Session starts ... [8:40] PeterYim: currentattendees: BobSmith, MichaelGruninger, PeterYim, TillMossakowski, ToddSchneider [8:41] PeterYim: let's start at: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_06_18#nid3U7D [8:42] PeterYim: (for the next 3 minutes) please read through where we got ourselves to, in last session's SWOT analysis: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OOR/ConferenceCall_2013_05_28#nid3TNP [8:50] PeterYim: == In the next few minutes, let's try to answer (please type in your view on: What should we "change" and "not change" in the way the OOR initiative is being approached ... [8:51] ToddSchneider: Are we addressing the correct problem (for the current time frame)? [8:51] BobSmith: No business case? [8:52] PeterYim: I think we should fundamentally change our approach ... and strive towards getting a formidable Ontology Repository in place first before trying to tackle the more challenging problems (like research problems) ... and, by "formidable" I mean the repository would actually hold a lot (if not "most") of the ontologies people are looking for [8:51] MichaelGruninger: I will reiterate my earlier point -- we should move to a bottom-up strategy in which we address the OOR issues in the currently active projects (OntoHub, COLORE, ...), and then come together to identify how we can best coordinate work, share ideas, and reuse implementations [8:54] TillMossakowski: I agree with Michael that after a more "top-down" approach we now should become more "bottom-up" [8:55] BobSmith: Consider a group of 5-6 teams writing a standard and some believe that an ontology based standard was a good idea...an Ontology Committee is created to develop coherent taxonomy around the term Building Life Cycle Phases. A rough Statement of Work is developed. HOW MIGHT a well formed OOR support this initiative? Somewhat like an REI Outdoors store - a variety of kinds of reusable components and a life cycle like road map (From the 2013 Communique?) [9:05] ToddSchneider: One advantage BioPortal has is a single domain that actively embraces ontology. Should we focus on a single domain? For instance geospatial? [9:05] TillMossakowski: We actually want to build SpacePortal.org, for spatial ontologies [9:06] MichaelGruninger: The key is to ensure that each of the ontology repository projects in OOR are interoperable from the software perspective, uniform in the GUI, and they use a shared approach to ontology metadata [9:08] MichaelGruninger: Peter's idea: make oor.net to be an ontology registry, which then links to the ontologies in the actual ontology repository where the ontology is described [9:13] MichaelGruninger: In COLORE, we use colore.oor.net as the root URI for the ontologies [9:14] TillMossakowski: discussion of Ontohub URI scheme: https://github.com/ontohub/ontohub/issues/172 [9:15] TillMossakowski: look at http://www.co-ode.org/ontologies/pizza [9:21] TillMossakowski: we have several OOR related discussions at Ontohub.org. I will forward these to the OOR mailing list [9:21] PeterYim: @Till - are you willing to go with ontonhub.oor.net in place of ontohub.org? [9:22] TillMossakowski: yes [9:22] PeterYim: thanks, Till [9:24] TillMossakowski: paper about Ontohub architecture: http://informatik.uni-bremen.de/~till/ontohub.pdf [9:25] TillMossakowski: ^ontohub.oor.net [9:35] PeterYim: priority, should then be: metadata, API and gatekeeping [9:43] ToddSchneider: Michael, as a design principle, avoid details until the last possible moment. [9:47] PeterYim: let's aim at getting these 3 top priorities addressed in the next 3 months [9:48] PeterYim: ... and then start addressing the content issue when these (metadata, API and gatekeeping) are in place [9:35] TillMossakowski: sorry, have to leave now - I am already half an hour late for my next meeting. Peter, Ken: could we let the OOR API session next week start at 10:00am EDT / 4:00pm CEST ? [9:53] ToddSchneider: Have to go. Cheers. [9:53] BobSmith: Failed to load: http://www.co-ode.org/ontologies/pizza/2007/02/12/pizza.owl [9:54] PeterYim: [consensus] regular OOR meeting is now shifted (1.5 hours earlier than before) - confcall times will be on Tuesdays 7:00am PDT / 10:00am EDT / 4:00 pm CEST / 1400 UTC [9:56] PeterYim: next meeting: "Ontohub-OOR-Gatekeeper API Hackathon" session - co-chairs: TillMossakowski & KenBaclawski - Tue 2013.06.25 1.5~2.0 Hrs. starting 7:00am PDT / 10:00am EDT / 4:00 pm CEST / 1400 UTC [9:56] PeterYim: very productive session! [9:57] PeterYim: -- session ended: 9:54am PDT -- ------